Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes:
> On 07/31/2015 02:46 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Well, sure, if you don't want the clog to grow arbitrarily large, then
>> you need to freeze. And most people would want to freeze regularly, to
>> keep the clog size in check. The point is that you wouldn't *have* to do
>> so at any particular time. You would never be up against the wall, in
>> the "you must freeze now or your database will shut down" situation.
> Well, we still have to freeze *eventually*. Just not for 122,000 years
> at current real transaction rates. In 2025, though, we'll be having
> this conversation again because of people doing 100 billion transactions
> per second. ;-)
Well, we'd wrap the 64-bit WAL position counters well before we wrap
64-bit TIDs ... and there is no code to support wraparound in WAL LSNs.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
