Re: Temporary tables prevent autovacuum, leading to XID wraparound

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Temporary tables prevent autovacuum, leading to XID wraparound
Date: 2018-01-31 17:01:49
Message-ID: CA+Tgmoa4iSMRKEOnrY1tzmj1q6yjaVG1RCVr3X-wG1u_QthtGg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 7:04 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
<tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> So a simple improvement would be to assign workers fairly to databases facing a wraparound risk, as Sawada-san suggested.

Is that always an improvement, or does it make some cases better and
others worse?

> One ultimate solution should be the undo-based MVCC that makes vacuuming unnecessary, which you proposed about a year ago...

And blogged about yesterday.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2018-01-31 18:07:11 Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
Previous Message Robert Haas 2018-01-31 16:56:59 Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v9.0