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
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 |