| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_multixact not getting truncated |
| Date: | 2014-11-19 21:03:03 |
| Message-ID: | 20141119210303.GG1639@alvin.alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 11/12/2014 06:57 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> How did template0 even get a MultiXact? That sounds like they're really abusing the template databases. :( (Do keep in mind that MXID 1 is a special value.)
> > No, it's normal -- template0 does not have a multixact in any tuple's
> > xmax, but datminxid is set to the value that is current when it is
> > frozen.
>
> So, to follow up on this: it seems to me that we shouldn't be requiring
> freezing for databases where allowconn=false. This seems like a TODO to
> me, even possibly a backpatchable bug fix.
Why do we need this for pg_multixact but not for pg_clog?
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2014-11-19 21:16:35 | Re: pg_multixact not getting truncated |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2014-11-19 20:57:54 | Re: pg_multixact not getting truncated |