FAQ

On 07.06.2013 20:54, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Greg Starkwrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
That will keep OldestXmin from advancing. Which will keep vacuum from
advancing relfrozenxid/datfrozenxid. Which will first trigger the warnings
about wrap-around, then stops new XIDs from being generated, and finally a
forced shutdown.

The forced shutdown will actually happen some time before going beyond 2
billion XIDs. So it is not possible to have a long-lived transaction, older
than 2 B XIDs, still live in the system. But let's imagine that you somehow
bypass the safety mechanism:
Ah, so if you do the epoch in the page header thing or Robert's LSN
trick that I didn't follow then you'll need a new safety check against
this. Since relfrozenxid/datfrozenxid will no longer be necessary.
Nothing proposed here gets rid of either of those, that I can see.
Right. The meaning of relfrozenxid/datfrozenxid changes somewhat; it no
longer means that all XIDs older than frozenxid are replaced with
FrozenXid. Instead, it will mean that all XIDs older than frozenxid are
committed, ie. all dead tuples older than that have been vacuumed away.

- Heikki

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Previous

Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 24 of 39 | next ›
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-hackers @
categoriespostgresql
postedMay 30, '13 at 1:34p
activeAug 30, '13 at 6:34p
posts39
users9
websitepostgresql.org...
irc#postgresql

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase