From: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
---|---|
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 17:53:52 |
Message-ID: | 421388B0.7050405@archonet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephan Szabo wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>>Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
>>
>>(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.
>
> All in all, I figure that odds are very high that if someone isn't
> vacuuming in the rest of the transaction id space, either the transaction
> rate is high enough that 100,000 warning may not be enough or they aren't
> going to pay attention anyway and the howitzer might not be bad.
How would people feel about stopping after the first 100 transactions too?
Pro: Teaches the lesson straight away.
Con: Irritating
Con: Might not be enough time for automated installers
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-02-16 18:00:22 | Re: Help me recovering data |
Previous Message | E.Rodichev | 2005-02-16 17:50:11 | win32 performance - fsync question |