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

Re: SSI SLRU strategy choices

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SSI SLRU strategy choices
Date: 2010-12-29 20:20:40
Message-ID: 4D1B43B80200002500038D8D@gw.wicourts.gov (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
 
> If these limitations become a problem, you can always change them.
> A couple of zeroes at the start of the pg_clog filenames aren't
> going to bother anyone, I don't think.  Not so sure about your new
> proposed design's space usage.
 
I guess that's a call the community can make now -- if a
serializable transaction which is not flagged as read only remains
open long enough for over a billion other transactions to commit, is
it OK for the old transaction to be automatically canceled?  Is it
worth messing with the SLRU limits to double that?
 
Beyond a certain point you have transaction ID wrap-around, so at
that point this would be the least of your troubles -- canceling
the old transaction might even be helpful.  I thought that was at 2
billion, but Heikki was saying it's at 1 billion in an earlier post.
 
-Kevin

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-12-29 20:23:42
Subject: Re: Extensions, patch v16
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2010-12-29 20:18:48
Subject: Re: Anyone for SSDs?

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