From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Trent Shipley <tshipley(at)deru(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: How to avoid transaction ID wrap |
Date: | 2006-06-11 20:36:11 |
Message-ID: | 20060611203611.GE4678@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> > That's why people suggest partitions. Then you only vacuum the
> > partitions that are new and the old ones never need to be touched...
>
> This will all work a lot better once we track XID wraparound risk on a
> per-table rather than per-database basis. I hope that will be done in
> time for 8.2.
FWIW I posted the patch for non-transactional pg_class stuff in -patches
awhile back, so it's pending review ;-) I'll repost it (today I expect,
or tomorrow at the latest) with some minor corrections, along with the
corresponding relminxid patch. I indend to commit both during next week
(or this week, for those whose weeks start on sundays), barring
objections.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-06-11 21:06:23 | Re: longjmp in psql considered harmful |
Previous Message | ohp | 2006-06-11 20:00:11 | Re: pl/tcl regression failed |