Re: GetOldestXmin going backwards is dangerous after all

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: GetOldestXmin going backwards is dangerous after all
Date: 2013-02-04 17:21:50
Message-ID: CA+U5nMJDWuTS3G5cZMmQGutqOZO+xAuZvgSV9QyWgtjj24vydQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 4 February 2013 17:02, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

> I unfortunately don't yet see a robust way without storing the last used
> horizon :(.

We can't go backwards, but we can go forwards.

We can move the next xid forwards by an amount equal to the increase
in vacuum_defer_cleanup_age.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2013-02-04 17:29:15 Re: GetOldestXmin going backwards is dangerous after all
Previous Message Andres Freund 2013-02-04 17:02:05 Re: GetOldestXmin going backwards is dangerous after all