Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum loose ends

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum loose ends
Date: 2005-08-10 03:05:43
Message-ID: 20050810030543.GA2675@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 03:33:09PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:

> It occurs to me that vacuuming to prevent XID wraparound is not the only
> reason to do DB-wide vacuums: we also need to keep
> pg_database.datvacuumxid from getting too old, else we will have
> problems with clog bloat. We may need to rethink the test used.

Hmm. I have a patch for this, but now that it's ready, I wonder if it's
really needed. If I understand vacuum_set_xid_limits() correctly, it's
very difficult for the vacuumxid to be far behind the freeze limit. And
in the case it's actually behind, then there's nothing we can do -- the
only way out is for the user to end the long-running transaction.

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]alvh.no-ip.org>)
"Cómo ponemos nuestros dedos en la arcilla del otro. Eso es la amistad; jugar
al alfarero y ver qué formas se pueden sacar del otro" (C. Halloway en
La Feria de las Tinieblas, R. Bradbury)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-08-10 03:24:40 Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum loose ends
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-08-10 03:01:36 Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-08-10 03:24:40 Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum loose ends
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2005-08-10 01:01:38 Re: COPY FROM performance improvements