| From: | John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alex Friedman <alexf01(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Doc fix of aggressive vacuum threshold for multixact members storage |
| Date: | 2025-03-04 23:57:57 |
| Message-ID: | CANWCAZb9hb3NWQoOFkwP1dBW-OU43hG26EVkXAZMHDz8FSNgGA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 9:22 PM Alex Friedman <alexf01(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> >I decided to leave this out, since I just remembered that the most
> > likely change is actually to move to 64-bit offsets, as was proposed
> > here and has some enthusiastic support:
> >
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CACG=ezaWg7_nt-8ey4aKv2w9LcuLthHknwCawmBgEeTnJrJTcw@mail.gmail.com
>
> Thanks for the review and the draft, looks good to me, and I'm okay
> with doing this without the code comments. However, it seems like that
> thread is just the beginning of wider changes (if they indeed happen),
> which may impact these calculations as well, and then maybe a doc
> update reminder may come in useful?
The latest patch in that thread blows away the calculations as they
are. Even if that proposal doesn't happen, or is done differently, it
shows that we can't really predict how the code will change, and a
doc-update reminder here seems like closing the door after the horses
have left the barn.
--
John Naylor
Amazon Web Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2025-03-05 00:04:57 | Re: ecdh support causes unnecessary roundtrips |
| Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2025-03-04 23:50:17 | is git.postgresql.org working fine? |