From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: bkrug <bkrug@usatech.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Avoiding Refreezing XIDs Repeatedly
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:53:05 -0300
Message-ID: <20150209185305.GF3391@alvh.no-ip.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1423507553954-5837247.post@n5.nabble.com>
References: <1423497516487-5837222.post@n5.nabble.com>
<CAJghg4KAFiFnH6inJ+K7Bfef9bgGYt7E6MM3rkevqiT=Q245HQ@mail.gmail.com>
<1423507553954-5837247.post@n5.nabble.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
bkrug wrote:
> Matheus de Oliveira wrote
> > It changed in recent versions (9.3 or 9.4, I don't recall exactly which)
> > and moved to tuple header, but what you described is exactly what was
> > done,
> > the xid was 2.
>
> Should the relfrozenxid of pg_class then equal 2 for very old and already
> vacuumed tables? Because that is not what I am seeing.
No. The problem is that it's not easy to change the relfrozenxid when
an INSERT/UPDATE command creates a tuple with a non-frozen XID.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, bkrug@usatech.com
Subject: Re: Avoiding Refreezing XIDs Repeatedly
In-Reply-To: <20150209185305.GF3391@alvh.no-ip.org>
* 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