Re: Transaction ID wraparound: problem and proposed solution

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> writes:
> > Required frequency of *successful* vacuum over *all* tables.
> > We would have to remember something in pg_class/pg_database
> > and somehow force vacuum over "too-long-unvacuumed-tables"
> > *automatically*.
>
> I don't think this is a problem now; in practice you couldn't possibly
> go for half a billion transactions without vacuuming, I'd think.

ISTM you forgot that the XID counter (and usage) is global.

You need to have *any* table of *any* database in the
instance vacuumed before you are sure. Some low-traffic DB's
might not get vacuumed for years (for example template1).

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #