| From: | "Mikko Partio" <mpartio(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Pallav Kalva" <pkalva(at)livedatagroup(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 8.2 Autovacuum BUG ? |
| Date: | 2007-08-31 18:31:47 |
| Message-ID: | 2ca799770708311131r5ae5e3eera66a7cea1fc5917d@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 8/31/07, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Pallav Kalva wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >> Probably represents freezing of old tuples, which is a WAL-logged
> >> operation as of 8.2. Is it likely that the data is 200M transactions
> >> old?
> >>
> > If nothing changed on these tables how can it freeze old tuples ?
> > Does it mean that once it reaches 200M transactions it will do the same
> > thing all over again ?
>
> No -- once tuples are frozen, they don't need freezing again (unless
> they are modified by UPDATE or DELETE).
>
>
Off-topic question: the documentation says that XID numbers are 32 bit.
Could the XID be 64 bit when running on a 64 bit platform? That would
effectively prevent wrap-around issues.
Regards
MP
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pallav Kalva | 2007-08-31 18:42:11 | Re: 8.2 Autovacuum BUG ? |
| Previous Message | Chris Browne | 2007-08-31 17:46:09 | Re: 8.2 Autovacuum BUG ? |