On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 08:29:05AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > Given your concerns, and the need to get a fix for this out the door > quickly, what I'm inclined to do for the present is go bump the > threshold from 25% of MaxMultiXact to 50% of MaxMultiXact without > changing anything else.
+1 > Your analysis shows that this is more in line > with the existing policy for multixact IDs than what I did, and it > will reduce the threat of frequent wraparound scans. Now, it will > also increase the chances of somebody hitting the wall before > autovacuum can bail them out. But maybe not that much. If we need > 75% of the multixact member space to complete one cycle of > anti-wraparound vacuums, we're actually very close to the point where > the system just cannot work. If that's one big table, we're done. Agreed. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
