On 2013-12-14 20:19:11 +, Greg Stark wrote:
> I don't have a source tree handy but iirc we treaty 2^31 values as being in
> the past and 2^31 values as being in the future.
>
> I've been trying to think how to protect better against the recent vacuum
> freeze bug. If someone ruins vacuum freez
I don't have a source tree handy but iirc we treaty 2^31 values as being in
the past and 2^31 values as being in the future.
I've been trying to think how to protect better against the recent vacuum
freeze bug. If someone ruins vacuum freeze now and has any wrapped values
they'll destroy their pos
Gianni Ciolli writes:
> It seems there is a typo here:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/routine-vacuuming.html#VACUUM-FOR-WRAPAROUND
> where we say that we compare XIDs using arithmetic modulo 2^31, which
> should instead be 2^32 (as it is with uint32, e.g. xid_age).
[ thinks ab
Hi,
It seems there is a typo here:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/routine-vacuuming.html#VACUUM-FOR-WRAPAROUND
where we say that we compare XIDs using arithmetic modulo 2^31, which
should instead be 2^32 (as it is with uint32, e.g. xid_age).
Best wishes,
Dr. Gianni Ciolli - 2ndQ
