Re: The case against multixact GUCs

From: Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>
To: "Josh Berkus *EXTERN*" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: The case against multixact GUCs
Date: 2014-03-12 08:19:41
Message-ID: A737B7A37273E048B164557ADEF4A58B17CE3D21@ntex2010i.host.magwien.gv.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus wrote:
> What makes these GUCs worse is that nobody knows how to set them; nobody
> on this list and nobody in the field. Heck, I doubt 1 in 1000 of our
> users (or 1 in 10 people on this list) know what a multixact *is*.

I won't contend your first statement, but multixacts are explained
in the documentation:

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/routine-vacuuming.html#VACUUM-FOR-MULTIXACT-WRAPAROUND

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2014-03-12 08:23:40 Re: Torn page hazard in ginRedoUpdateMetapage()
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2014-03-12 07:22:06 Re: db_user_namespace a "temporary measure"