Re: What is "wraparound failure", really?

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: What is "wraparound failure", really?
Date: 2021-06-28 00:23:31
Message-ID: CA+hUKGK48vNvdM+y+oQy+u0jsKLJFV1=3b_U1MON3f3akoxyJQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 8:36 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> "The sole disadvantage of increasing autovacuum_freeze_max_age (and
> vacuum_freeze_table_age along with it) is that the pg_xact and
> pg_commit_ts subdirectories of the database cluster will take more
> space..."

Just by the way, if we're updating this sentence, it continues
"because it must store..." but it should surely be "because they must
store...".

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message kato-sho@fujitsu.com 2021-06-28 01:47:35 RE: Farewell greeting
Previous Message Peter Smith 2021-06-28 00:17:55 Re: Fix uninitialized copy_data var (src/backend/commands/subscriptioncmds.c)