| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: XID wraparound and busy databases |
| Date: | 2007-08-15 16:20:03 |
| Message-ID: | 200708151620.l7FGK3H07904@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Is enlarging the xid field something we should consider for 8.4?
>
> No. We just got the tuple header down to 24 bytes, we are not going
> to give that back and then some.
>
> If you are processing 6K transactions per second, you can afford to
> vacuum every couple days... and probably need to vacuum much more often
> than that anyway, to avoid table bloat.
>
> Possibly your respondent should think about trying to do more than one
> thing per transaction?
OK, yea, I think that makes sense.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2007-08-15 16:20:09 | Re: CVS corruption/mistagging? |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-08-15 16:19:22 | Re: XID wraparound and busy databases |