| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation |
| Date: | 2024-03-11 14:13:57 |
| Message-ID: | 20240311141357.GA1349955@nathanxps13 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 04:09:27PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I don't see how it will be easier for the user to choose the default
> value of 'max_slot_xid_age' compared to 'max_slot_wal_keep_size'. But,
> I agree similar to 'max_slot_wal_keep_size', 'max_slot_xid_age' can be
> another parameter to allow vacuum to proceed removing the rows which
> otherwise it wouldn't have been as those would be required by some
> slot.
Yeah, the idea is to help prevent transaction ID wraparound, so I would
expect max_slot_xid_age to ordinarily be set relatively high, i.e., 1.5B+.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2024-03-11 14:44:32 | Disconnect if socket cannot be put into non-blocking mode |
| Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2024-03-11 14:03:35 | Re: Adding OLD/NEW support to RETURNING |