| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(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 21:16:35 |
| Message-ID: | 546D08B3.9010306@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/19/2014 01:03 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 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?
I think we want it for both.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-11-19 21:58:21 | Re: Increasing test coverage of WAL redo functions |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-11-19 21:03:03 | Re: pg_multixact not getting truncated |