On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 12:30 PM wenhui qiu <qiuwenhu...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think we need int64 GUCs, due to these parameters（ > autovacuum_freeze_table_age, autovacuum_freeze_max_age,When a table age is > greater than any of these parameters an aggressive vacuum will be performed, > When we implementing xid64, is it still necessary to be in the int range? > btw, I have a suggestion to record a warning in the log when the table age > exceeds the int maximum. These default values we can set a reasonable values > ,for example autovacuum_freeze_max_age=4294967295 or 8589934592.
In principle, even with 64-bit transaction ids we could specify *_age GUCs as int32 with bigger units or as float8. That feels a bit awkward for me. This is why I queried more about Tom's opinion in more details: did he propose to wait with int64 GUCs before we have 64-bit transaction ids, or give up about them completely? Links. 1. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3649727.1727276882%40sss.pgh.pa.us ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov Supabase
