| From: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'mhh(at)mindspring(dot)com'" <mhh(at)mindspring(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | RE: Transaction ID wraparound: problem and proposed sol ution |
| Date: | 2000-11-06 22:12:07 |
| Message-ID: | 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A234D314A@sectorbase1.sectorbase.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > OK, 2^64 isn't mathematically unbounded, but let's see you
> > buy a disk that will hold it ;-). My point is that if we want
> > to think about allowing >4G transactions, part of the answer
> > has to be a way to recycle pg_log space. Otherwise it's still
> > not really practical.
>
> I kind of like vadim's idea of segmenting pg_log.
>
> Segments in which all the xacts have been commited could be deleted.
Without undo we have to ensure that all tables are vacuumed after
all transactions related to a segment were committed/aborted.
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-11-06 23:35:10 | Re: ResetSystemCaches(was Re: relation ### modified while in use) |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-11-06 21:25:33 | Re: problems with configure |