On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > On 11/19/2014 01:03 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Josh Berkus wrote: >>> On 11/12/2014 06:57 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>>>> How did template0 even get a MultiXact? That sounds like they're really >>>>> abusing the template databases. :( (Do keep in mind that MXID 1 is a >>>>> special value.) >>>> No, it's normal -- template0 does not have a multixact in any tuple's >>>> xmax, but datminxid is set to the value that is current when it is >>>> frozen. >>> >>> So, to follow up on this: it seems to me that we shouldn't be requiring >>> freezing for databases where allowconn=false. This seems like a TODO to >>> me, even possibly a backpatchable bug fix. >> >> Why do we need this for pg_multixact but not for pg_clog? > > I think we want it for both.
So that we can have two ways to lose data? Forbidding connections to a database doesn't prevent XID or MXID wraparound. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
