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

Re: Bug in autovacuum.c?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: 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 14:06:46
Message-ID: AANLkTinDsZSK_weu4EdRLWCBMve7aMnX=BdN9ar7dsic@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 5:59 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
>
> Wouldn't you rather:
>
>        105 -> 5
>        104 -> 4
>        103 -> 3
>        102 -> 3
>        101 -> 3
>        100 -> 3
>         99 -> max_id
>         98 -> max_id -1

Oh, quite right.  Sorry I missed that.  I suppose if we wanted to fix
this for real, we'd want to get:

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

But it doesn't seem worth getting excited about.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-04-01 14:11:09
Subject: Re: corner case about replication and shutdown
Previous:From: Rushabh LathiaDate: 2011-04-01 14:01:10
Subject: Re: edb-postgres.exe has encountered a problem on windows

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