From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Timothy Garnett <tgarnett(at)panjiva(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Re: BUG #12990: Missing pg_multixact/members files (appears to have wrapped, then truncated) |
Date: | 2015-05-04 20:36:50 |
Message-ID: | 20150504203650.GC2523@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Thomas Munro wrote:
> FWIW, in some future release, I think we should consider getting a
> bigger multixact member address space that wraps around at 2^48 or
> 2^64 instead of 2^32, so that we can sidestep the whole business and
> go back to having just xid and mxid wraparounds to worry about.
> pg_multixact/offsets would be 50% or 100% bigger (an extra byte or two
> per multixact), but it's not very big. pg_multiact/members would be
> no bigger for any workload that currently works without hitting the
> wraparound error, but could grow bigger if needed.
Not sure that enlarging the addressable area to 48/64 bits is feasible,
TBH. We already have many complaints that multixacts take too much disk
space; we don't want to make that 2^32 times worse, not even 2^16 times
worse. I don't understand why you say it'd become 1 byte bigger per
multixact; it would have to be 4 more bytes (2^64) or 2 more bytes
(2^48), no? If you have 150 million multixacts (the default freeze
table age) that would mean about 300 or 600 MB of additional disk space,
which is not insignificant: with the current system, in an database with
normal multixact usage of 4 members per multixact, members/ would use
about 2.8 GB, so 600 additional MB in offsets/ is large enough growth to
raise some more complaints.
(The 2^48 suggestion might be a tad more difficult to implement, note,
becase a lot of stuff relies on unsigned integer wraparound addition,
and I'm not sure we can have that with a 2^48 counter. Maybe we could
figure how to make it work, but is it worth the bother?)
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-05-04 20:37:58 | Re: Re: BUG #12990: Missing pg_multixact/members files (appears to have wrapped, then truncated) |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-05-04 19:06:02 | Re: Re: BUG #12990: Missing pg_multixact/members files (appears to have wrapped, then truncated) |