On Sunday 05 November 2000 13:02, Tom Lane wrote: > OK, 2^64 isn't mathematically unbounded, but let's see you buy a disk > that will hold it ;-). My point is that if we want to think about > allowing >4G transactions, part of the answer has to be a way to recycle > pg_log space. Otherwise it's still not really practical. I kind of like vadim's idea of segmenting pg_log. Segments in which all the xacts have been commited could be deleted. -- Mark Hollomon
- Re: [HACKERS] Transaction ID wraparound: problem and prop... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Transaction ID wraparound: problem and... Vadim Mikheev
- Re: [HACKERS] Transaction ID wraparound: problem and prop... Hannu Krosing
- Re: [HACKERS] Transaction ID wraparound: problem and... Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] Transaction ID wraparound: problem... Larry Rosenman
- Re: [HACKERS] Transaction ID wraparound: pro... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Transaction ID wraparound:... Larry Rosenman
- Re: [HACKERS] Transaction ID wraparound: problem... Hannu Krosing
- Re: [HACKERS] Transaction ID wraparound: pro... Larry Rosenman
- Re: [HACKERS] Transaction ID wraparound: problem and... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Transaction ID wraparound: problem... Mark Hollomon
- Re: [HACKERS] Transaction ID wraparound: problem and prop... Bruce Momjian
- RE: [HACKERS] Transaction ID wraparound: problem and prop... Mikheev, Vadim
- RE: [HACKERS] Transaction ID wraparound: problem and prop... Mikheev, Vadim