| From: | Rajesh Kumar <rajeshkumar(dot)dba09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Wraparound |
| Date: | 2024-02-20 07:27:45 |
| Message-ID: | CAJk5AtbKkv0AFfGkm-qS2ekG0bjCeEYe-pyHxorQcwAF-WKSvw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Sorry, I could not understand. If possible, please elaborate. Otherwise, no
issues
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024, 12:53 Laurenz Albe, <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-02-20 at 10:02 +0530, Rajesh Kumar wrote:
> > Is autovacuum wraparound issue is when transaction id reaches
> > autovacuum_freeze_max_age or if transaction Reaches 2^32.
> >
> > My autovacuum_freeze_age setting is 200million.
> >
> > Db size is 150gb.
>
> 2^31 is the magical number at which very old transactions become
> transactions from the future, which would cause data loss unless
> all old rows have been frozen.
>
> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Banck | 2024-02-20 07:40:44 | Re: Wraparound |
| Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2024-02-20 07:23:34 | Re: Wraparound |