| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>, Koichi Suzuki <suzuki(dot)koichi(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Mark Woodward <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: How to avoid transaction ID wrap |
| Date: | 2006-06-07 20:38:33 |
| Message-ID: | 20060607203832.GX45331@pervasive.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:47:45AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM> writes:
> > Koichi Suzuki wrote:
> >> I've once proposed a patch for 64bit transaction ID, but this causes
> >> some overhead to each tuple (XMIN and XMAX).
>
> > Did you check performance on 32-bit or 64-bit systems and 64-bit binary
> > version of PGSQL? I think that today is not problem to have 64-bit
> > architecture and 64-bit ID should increase scalability of Postgres.
>
> The percentage increase in I/O demand is the main reason the patch was
> rejected, not so much the arithmetic.
Before considering 64 bit XIDs, it'd be very helpful to know why Mark
can't vacuum frequently enough to handle rollover...
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-06-07 20:44:50 | Re: That EXPLAIN ANALYZE patch still needs work |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-06-07 20:22:32 | Re: That EXPLAIN ANALYZE patch still needs work |