Greg Stark wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > OK, just keep going below 100: > > > > ? ? ? ?105 -> 5 > > ? ? ? ?104 -> 4 > > ? ? ? ?103 -> 3 > > ? ? ? ?102 -> max_xid > > ? ? ? ?101 -> max_xid - 1 > > ? ? ? ?100 -> max_xid - 2 > > ? ? ? ? 99 -> max_id > > ? ? ? ? 98 -> max_id -1 > > Yeah, I think this is what the code is doing. > > > > > Wouldn't you rather: > > > > ? ? ? ?105 -> 5 > > ? ? ? ?104 -> 4 > > ? ? ? ?103 -> 3 > > ? ? ? ?102 -> 3 > > ? ? ? ?101 -> 3 > > ? ? ? ?100 -> 3 > > ? ? ? ? 99 -> max_id > > ? ? ? ? 98 -> max_id -1 > > > > I think I would expect > > > ? ? ? ?105 -> 5 > > ? ? ? ?104 -> 4 > > ? ? ? ?103 -> 3 > > ? ? ? ?102 -> max_id > > ? ? ? ?101 -> max_id-1 > > ? ? ? ?100 -> max_id-2 > > ? ? ? ? 99 -> max_id-3 > > But it doesn't really matter either way, does it? We don't even allow > setting vacuum_max_freeze_age to 2^31-1 or any value that would be > close to triggering a problem here.
It doesn't need to be that high because it is subtracted from the current xid counter, so if vacuum_max_freeze_age is 100, and the xid counter is 101, we see the problem. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
