From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 64-bit XIDs again |
Date: | 2015-08-01 00:27:22 |
Message-ID: | 14500.1438388842@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> On 07/31/2015 02:46 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Well, sure, if you don't want the clog to grow arbitrarily large, then
>> you need to freeze. And most people would want to freeze regularly, to
>> keep the clog size in check. The point is that you wouldn't *have* to do
>> so at any particular time. You would never be up against the wall, in
>> the "you must freeze now or your database will shut down" situation.
> Well, we still have to freeze *eventually*. Just not for 122,000 years
> at current real transaction rates. In 2025, though, we'll be having
> this conversation again because of people doing 100 billion transactions
> per second. ;-)
Well, we'd wrap the 64-bit WAL position counters well before we wrap
64-bit TIDs ... and there is no code to support wraparound in WAL LSNs.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andreas Seltenreich | 2015-08-01 00:56:22 | [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in joinrels.c |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2015-08-01 00:18:59 | Re: 64-bit XIDs again |