Re: XIDs and big boxes again ...

From: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>
To: Hans-Juergen Schoenig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: XIDs and big boxes again ...
Date: 2008-05-12 17:55:45
Message-ID: 482884A1.6010605@zeut.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote:
> i suggest to introduce a --with-long-xids flag which would give me 62 /
> 64 bit XIDs per vacuum on the entire database.
> this should be fairly easy to implement.
> i am not too concerned about the size of the tuple header here - if we
> waste 500 gb of storage here i am totally fine.

As you say later in the thread, you are on 8.1. Alot of work has gone
into reducing the effect, impact and frequency of XID wrap around and
vacuuming since then. In 8.3 transactions that don't actually update a
table no long use a real XID and autovacuum you no longer need a
database wide vacuum to solve the XID wraparound problem, so I think the
answer is upgrade to 8.3 and see if you still have this problem.

Matthew O'Connor

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-05-12 18:10:50 Re: Syntax decisions for pl/pgsql RAISE extension
Previous Message Brendan Jurd 2008-05-12 17:41:56 Re: Syntax decisions for pl/pgsql RAISE extension