On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:04:23PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > Hm. Why? If freezing gets notably cheaper I don't really see much need > > for keeping that much clog around? If we still run into anti-wraparound > > areas, there has to be some major operational problem. > > That is true, but we have a decent number of customers who do in fact > have such problems. I think that's only going to get more common. As > hardware gets faster and PostgreSQL improves, people are going to > process more and more transactions in shorter and shorter periods of > time. Heikki's benchmark results for the XLOG scaling patch show > rates of >80,000 tps. Even at a more modest 10,000 tps, with default > settings, you'll do anti-wraparound vacuums of the entire cluster > about every 8 hours. That's not fun.
Are you assuming these are all write transactions, hence consuming xids? -- Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
