From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: fixing old_snapshot_threshold's time->xid mapping |
Date: | 2020-04-16 17:34:39 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmobfgjui4HiK8VDGYP_73WktWEr844TA3YyJomvYb3fs0A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 1:14 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> I still think we need a way to test this without waiting for hours to
> hit various edge cases. You argued against a fixed binning of
> old_snapshot_threshold/100 arguing its too coarse. How about a 1000 or
> so? For 60 days, the current max for old_snapshot_threshold, that'd be a
> granularity of 01:26:24, which seems fine. The best way I can think of
> that'd keep current GUC values sensible is to change
> old_snapshot_threshold to be float. Ugly, but ...?
Yeah, 1000 would be a lot better. However, if we switch to a fixed
number of bins, it's going to be a lot more code churn. What did you
think of my suggestion of making head_timestamp artificially move
backward to simulate the passage of time?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2020-04-16 17:46:01 | Re: fixing old_snapshot_threshold's time->xid mapping |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-04-16 17:20:04 | Re: Race condition in SyncRepGetSyncStandbysPriority |