Re: How to avoid transaction ID wrap

From: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
Cc: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: How to avoid transaction ID wrap
Date: 2006-06-08 13:05:12
Message-ID: 1149771912.4537.20.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Ühel kenal päeval, K, 2006-06-07 kell 17:45, kirjutas Jim C. Nasby:

> Plus, if the only issue here is in fact the long-running transaction for
> vacuum, there's other ways to address that which would be a lot less
> intrusive than doing something like going to 64 bit XIDs. IIRC, in 8.2
> vacuum will start a new transaction every time it fills up
> maintenance_work_mem, so just setting that low could solve the problem
> (at the expense of a heck of a lot of extra IO).

If the aim is to *only* avoid transaction wraparound, then maybe we
could introduce VACUUM FREEZE ONLY; which never removes any old tuples,
but instead just marks them by setting xmin=xmax for them, in addition
to its freezing of live-and-visible-to-all tuples.

This would avoid touching indexes at all and may well be what is desired
for tables with only very little updates/deletes.

--
----------------
Hannu Krosing
Database Architect
Skype Technologies OÜ
Akadeemia tee 21 F, Tallinn, 12618, Estonia

Skype me: callto:hkrosing
Get Skype for free: http://www.skype.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2006-06-08 13:32:00 Re: ADD/DROP INHERITS
Previous Message Hannu Krosing 2006-06-08 12:36:16 Re: More on inheritance and foreign keys