| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Intermittent buildfarm failures on wrasse |
| Date: | 2022-04-15 17:11:03 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzmPesOe=pAHnPfiBhYUjz=+yxDEawLpBBkdL-+w=E3bJQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 10:05 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> I don't think they're actually that comparable. One shows how much
> relfrozenxid advanced, to a large degree influenced by the time between
> aggressive (or "unintentionally aggressive") vacuums.
It matters more in the extreme cases. The most recent possible value
for our new relfrozenxid is OldestXmin/removable cutoff. So when
something holds back OldestXmin, it also holds back new relfrozenxid
values.
> The other shows
> the age of OldestXmin at the end of the vacuum. Which is influenced by
> what's currently running.
As well as the age of OldestXmin at the start of VACUUM.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-04-15 17:15:49 | Re: Intermittent buildfarm failures on wrasse |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-04-15 17:05:42 | Re: Intermittent buildfarm failures on wrasse |