From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: HOT patch, missing things |
Date: | 2007-08-07 22:38:53 |
Message-ID: | 1186526333.4192.97.camel@ebony.site |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 16:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 15:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> >>> We also need something that will re-zero the stats when they reach
> >>> anywhere near integer overflow, since we must not allow them to wrap. I
> >>> would suggest we simply reset all values to zero for that table.
> >>
> >> pgstat counters are int64.
>
> > You would prefer undefined behaviour at wrap?
>
> You should live so long as to have a problem with it. Do the math:
> at one increment every nanosecond, 24x7x365, you'd be risking overflow
> after about 300 years of continuous initdb-less operation. For someone
> opining that important features are OK to omit from HOT for 8.3, I have
> to question your judgment in worrying about this.
I'm not worried about it, but I was mistaken in thinking you might be.
If you're OK with HOT as-is, then sure, I'll have partial indexes too
and much more besides. The question is: are you OK with HOT as-is?
Should we take it further? How far?
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-08-07 22:46:05 | Re: [GENERAL] Template zero xid issue |
Previous Message | Bertram Scharpf | 2007-08-07 22:17:41 | Re: 76AC-752C-3D91 : CONFIRM from pgsql-hackers (subscribe) |