| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum ERRORs out considering freezing dead tuples from before OldestXmin |
| Date: | 2024-07-22 18:22:54 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wznj6N4R8w1N6TRJwF0TCBUekgSYS1TVXjH5mpkCO8H=WA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 2:13 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> It's hard by now (i.e. 17+) because you need substantial amounts of rows to be
> able to trigger it which makes it a hard fight to introduce.
I didn't think that it was particularly hard when I tested the test
that Melanie committed.
> And the cost of
> setting the GUC limit lower is essentially zero.
Apparently you know more about TID Store than me.
If it really is trivial to lower the limit, then I have no objections
to doing so. That would make it easy to fix the test flappiness issues
by just using the much lower limit.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2024-07-22 18:50:34 | Re: xid_wraparound tests intermittent failure. |
| Previous Message | Melanie Plageman | 2024-07-22 18:17:46 | Re: Vacuum ERRORs out considering freezing dead tuples from before OldestXmin |