On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:24:40PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hmm. I have a patch for this, but now that it's ready, I wonder if it's > > really needed. If I understand vacuum_set_xid_limits() correctly, it's > > very difficult for the vacuumxid to be far behind the freeze limit. > > Umm ... they can be close together, or a billion XIDs apart, depending > on whether the FREEZE option was used.
Sorry, my point was that vacuumxid is generally going to be higher than freeze-xid, and where it isn't, a simple vacuum can't fix it. But now that I think about it, maybe the point is that if a long-running transaction (a billon-transactions old transaction?) was running when the last database-wide vacuum was run, then vacuumxid is going to be older than freeze-xid, so we may need a database-wide vacuum to fix that even though the freeze-xid is not old enough. Is that right? -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]alvh.no-ip.org>) We take risks not to escape from life, but to prevent life escaping from us. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend