On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2017-06-07 07:49:00 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Instead of adding a second 64 bit counter for multixacts, how about >> first implementing something like TED which gets rid of multixacts (and >> freezing thereof) altogether? > > -1 - that seems like a too high barrier. We've punted on improvements on > this because of CSN, xid-lsn ranges, and at some point we're going to > have to make pragmatic choices, rather than strive for something more ideal.
What is the problem that we are trying to solve with this change? Is there a practical use case for setting autovacuum_freeze_max_age > 2000000000, or is this just so that when autovacuum fails to vacuum things in time, we can bloat clog instead of performing an emergency shutdown? -- 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
