| From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Kouber Saparev <postgresql(at)saparev(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Help me recovering data |
| Date: | 2005-02-16 18:08:26 |
| Message-ID: | 20050216180826.GA14358@wolff.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 09:38:31 -0800,
Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > (a) within 200,000 transactions of wrap, every transaction start
> > delivers a WARNING message;
> >
> > (b) within 100,000 transactions, forced shutdown as above.
>
> This seems reasonable, although perhaps the former could be something
> configurable. I'm not sure there's a good reason to allow the latter to
> change unless there'd ever be a case where 100,000 transactions wasn't
> enough to vacuum or something like that.
I don't think there is much point in making it configurable. If they knew
to do that they would most likely know to vacuum as well.
However, 100K out of 1G seems too small. Just to get wrap around there
must be a pretty high transaction rate, so 100K may not give much warning.
1M or 10M seem to be better.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-02-16 18:08:58 | Re: Help me recovering data |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-02-16 18:01:56 | Re: Help me recovering data |