| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
| Date: | 2010-04-21 13:37:46 |
| Message-ID: | 1271857066.8305.27964.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 15:27 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Given the discussion about the cyclic nature of XIDs, it would be good
> to add an assertion that when a new XID is added to the array, it is
>
> a) larger than the biggest value already in the array
> (TransactionIdFollows(new, head)), and
> b) not too far from the smallest value in the array to confuse binary
> search (TransactionIdFollows(new, tail)).
We discussed this in November. You convinced me it isn't possible for
older xids to stay in the standby because anti-wraparound vacuums would
conflict and kick them out. The primary can't run with wrapped xids and
neither can the standby. I think that is correct.
Adding an assertion isn't going to do much because it's unlikely anybody
is going to be running for 2^31 transactions with asserts enabled.
Worrying about things like this seems strange when real and negative
behaviours are right in our faces elsewhere. Performance and scalability
are real world concerns.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2010-04-21 13:41:37 | Re: BETA |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-04-21 13:31:28 | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |