Hi, On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 12:25 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Bharath, > > Thanks for re-working the project.
Thank you for looking into this. > While seeing the old discussion, I found that Robert Haas was agaist the > XID-based > invalidation, because it's difficult to determine the cutoff age [1]. > Can you clarify your thought against the point? Are you focusing on solving > the > wraparound issues, not for bloated instance issue? > The code may not be accepted unless we got his agreement. > > [1]: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ca+tgmoztbaaejszug1fl0mzxadn3qmxkso3o9_pzheuxtkv...@mail.gmail.com I summarized what others (Nathan, Robert, Amit, Alvaro, Bertrand) said about it here with my responses: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALj2ACVY%2BFd5vC0VjW%3D5VDK9mmt-Y%2BPDZxnBp8ngGAZc24Vv9g%40mail.gmail.com. Please have a look. A good setting for this in production scenarios is to set max_slot_xid_age to vacuum_failsafe_age (1.6B) or little less, so that autovacuum invalidates the slot before entering failsafe mode, unblocking datfrozenxid advancement and avoiding XID wraparound without manual VACUUM or downtime. I added a test for this in the 0002 patch. Please have a look. -- Bharath Rupireddy Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
