Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum loose ends

From: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>,pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum loose ends
Date: 2005-07-25 15:33:37
Message-ID: 42E50651.3040603@zeut.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:

>"Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> writes:
>  
>
>>I don't know either, but this brings up another question.  Stats 
>>wraparound.  
>>
>We'll all be safely dead, for one thing ;-)
>
>At one update per nanosecond, it'd take approximately 300 years to wrap
>a 64-bit counter.  Somehow I don't have a problem with the idea that
>Postgres would need to be rebooted that often.  We'd want to fix the
>32-bit nature of XIDs long before 64-bit stats counters get to be a
>real-world issue ...
>

*sigh*  Sorry, I should have done a little math before I asked that 
question.....

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-07-25 16:13:30
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Roles - SET ROLE Updated
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-07-25 15:28:46
Subject: Re: regression failure on stats test

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-07-25 16:13:30
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Roles - SET ROLE Updated
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-07-25 04:59:01
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum loose ends

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group