| From: | Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com, Ken Kato <katouknl(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Is monotonous xid8 is a right way to do? |
| Date: | 2022-04-01 12:39:07 |
| Message-ID: | 87r16hou50.fsf@wibble.ilmari.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org> writes:
> Even if a cluster was consuming a million XIDs per second, it would take
> over half a million years to wrap around the 64bit range. Is that really
> something we should worry about?
>
> ilmari(at)[local]:5432 ~=# select 2::numeric^64/10^9/3600/24/365;
Oops, that should be 10^6, not 10^9. I was dithering over whether to do
it as a million or a billion per second. For a billion XIDs per second
it would last a mere half millennium.
> ┌──────────────────┐
> │ ?column? │
> ├──────────────────┤
> │ 584942.417355072 │
> └──────────────────┘
>
> - ilmari
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2022-04-01 12:43:03 | Re: Is monotonous xid8 is a right way to do? |
| Previous Message | Maxim Orlov | 2022-04-01 12:36:28 | Re: Is monotonous xid8 is a right way to do? |