| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Clarify the behavior of the system when approaching XID wraparound |
| Date: | 2023-05-02 03:03:47 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzmKhFhc3XQQzHAjoF=TdAnFJ95Hat3Yj9wKuyKJZq6KXQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 7:55 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> Obviously there are certain things that can hold back OldestMXact by a
> wildly excessive amount. But I don't think that there is anything that
> can hold back OldestMXact by a wildly excessive amount that won't more
> or less do the same thing to OldestXmin.
Actually, it's probably possible for a transaction that only has a
virtual transaction ID to call MultiXactIdSetOldestVisible(), which
will then have the effect of holding back OldestMXact without also
holding back OldestXmin (in READ COMMITTED mode).
Will have to check to make sure, but that won't happen today.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Naylor | 2023-05-02 03:04:40 | Re: Overhauling "Routine Vacuuming" docs, particularly its handling of freezing |
| Previous Message | shveta malik | 2023-05-02 03:00:51 | Re: Support logical replication of DDLs |