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

Re: Bug in autovacuum.c?

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bug in autovacuum.c?
Date: 2011-04-01 01:54:12
Message-ID: AANLkTimodLBV4qQi3RAWt3c_QpY7xBWMF7KJ2-6QQ7V-@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> OK, just keep going below 100:
>
>        105 -> 5
>        104 -> 4
>        103 -> 3
>        102 -> max_xid
>        101 -> max_xid - 1
>        100 -> max_xid - 2
>         99 -> max_id
>         98 -> max_id -1

Yeah, I think this is what the code is doing.

>
> Wouldn't you rather:
>
>        105 -> 5
>        104 -> 4
>        103 -> 3
>        102 -> 3
>        101 -> 3
>        100 -> 3
>         99 -> max_id
>         98 -> max_id -1
>

I think I would expect

>        105 -> 5
>        104 -> 4
>        103 -> 3
>        102 -> max_id
>        101 -> max_id-1
>        100 -> max_id-2
>         99 -> max_id-3

But it doesn't really matter either way, does it? We don't even allow
setting vacuum_max_freeze_age to 2^31-1 or any value that would be
close to triggering a problem here.


-- 
greg

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-04-01 02:58:05
Subject: Re: cast from integer to money
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2011-04-01 00:49:22
Subject: Re: Should psql support URI syntax?

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