From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Elliot Chance <elliotchance@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pg_dump and XID limit
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 10:16:48 -0500
Message-ID: <18330.1290611808@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <C7D1CBBF-B65F-4047-B9BC-933D9C02D502@gmail.com>
References: <DC1E3319-08CD-4C61-9565-06D744260261@gmail.com>
<6420.1290578869@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<C7D1CBBF-B65F-4047-B9BC-933D9C02D502@gmail.com>
Elliot Chance <elliotchance@gmail.com> writes:
> Wouldn't that mean at some point it would be advisable to be using 64bit transaction IDs? Or would that change too much of the codebase?
It's not so much "too much of the codebase" as "nobody wants another 8
bytes added to per-row overhead". Holding a transaction open for
circa 2G transactions would be disastrous anyway, because of table bloat
from inability to reclaim dead rows.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, elliotchance@gmail.com
Subject: Re: pg_dump and XID limit
In-Reply-To: <18330.1290611808@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox