From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Prepared transactions vs novice DBAs, again |
Date: | 2009-04-22 18:55:27 |
Message-ID: | 1240426527.26999.114.camel@monkey-cat.sm.truviso.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 13:53 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Another thing we could do is make autovacuum log something about those,
> similar to what it does to temp tables. And if one of them gets too
> near Xid wraparound, kill it.
As I said in my reply to Joshua, I don't think killing a prepared
transaction is consistent with the safety people expect from 2PC.
However, if it's near wraparound time, that could be considered an
exceptional case I suppose, and if we don't have a better way to avoid
getting the system in a very bad state, it might be acceptable.
I like the idea of logging some kind of warning a long time before it
becomes a real problem. Should the staleness of a prepared transaction
be measured in time or xid age or both? Maybe have a reasonable default
of a few minutes or a couple thousand transactions before it starts
issuing warnings?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-04-22 18:58:53 | Re: Prepared transactions vs novice DBAs, again |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-04-22 18:53:09 | Re: Prepared transactions vs novice DBAs, again |