On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 07:41:38PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 07:04:45PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
The database can suffer XID wraparound anyway if there's at least one table without updates, because the autovacuum daemon will never vacuum it (correct me if I'm wrong).
If a table is never updated and hence not vacuumed at all, why would it be involved in a transaction that would have xid wrap around?
Because the tuples on it were involved in some insert operation at some time (else the table would not have any tuples). So it _has_ to be vacuumed, else you run the risk of losing the tuples when the wraparound happens. (Sorry, I don't know how to explain this better.)
OK. So here is what I understand. I have a table which contains 100 rows which appeated there due to some insert operation. Then I vacuum it. And sit there for internity for rest of the database to approach the singularity(the xid wraparound..:-) Nice term, isn't it?).
So this static table is vulnerable to xid wraparound? I doubt.
Did I miss something?
Shridhar
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
