Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Off-topic question: the documentation says that XID numbers are 32 bit. Could the XID be 64 bit when running on a 64 bit platform? That would effectively prevent wrap-around issues.
Regards
MP
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: 8.2 Autovacuum BUG ?
- From: "Mikko Partio" <mpartio(at)gmail(dot)com>
- To: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
- Cc: "Pallav Kalva" <pkalva(at)livedatagroup(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: 8.2 Autovacuum BUG ?
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:31:47 +0300
On 8/31/07, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
Pallav Kalva wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Probably represents freezing of old tuples, which is a WAL-logged
>> operation as of 8.2. Is it likely that the data is 200M transactions
>> old?
>>
> If nothing changed on these tables how can it freeze old tuples ?
> Does it mean that once it reaches 200M transactions it will do the same
> thing all over again ?
No -- once tuples are frozen, they don't need freezing again (unless
they are modified by UPDATE or DELETE).
Off-topic question: the documentation says that XID numbers are 32 bit. Could the XID be 64 bit when running on a 64 bit platform? That would effectively prevent wrap-around issues.
Regards
MP
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 8.2 Autovacuum BUG ?
- From: Alvaro Herrera
- Re: 8.2 Autovacuum BUG ?
- References:
- 8.2 Autovacuum BUG ?
- From: Pallav Kalva
- Re: 8.2 Autovacuum BUG ?
- From: Tom Lane
- Re: 8.2 Autovacuum BUG ?
- From: Pallav Kalva
- Re: 8.2 Autovacuum BUG ?
- From: Alvaro Herrera
- 8.2 Autovacuum BUG ?
- Prev by Date: Re: 8.2 Autovacuum BUG ?
- Next by Date: Re: 8.2 Autovacuum BUG ?
- Previous by thread: Re: 8.2 Autovacuum BUG ?
- Next by thread: Re: 8.2 Autovacuum BUG ?
- Indexes: