On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 01:00:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> No, you're wrong.  VACUUMing of individual tables is perfectly good
> >> enough as far as XID wrap protection goes, it's just that we chose to
> >> track whether it had been done at the database level.  If we tracked it
> >> in, say, a new pg_class column then in principle you could protect
> >> against XID wrap with only table-at-a-time VACUUMs.
> > Good, I'm glad I'm wrong on this.  This will be another nice advantage 
> > of autovacuum then and should be fairly easy to do.  Any thoughts on 
> > this being a change we can get in for 8.1?
> I'd say this is probably a tad too late --- there's a fair amount of
> code change that would be needed, none of which has been written, and
> we are past the feature-freeze deadline for new code.

Right.  I've written a small, non-intrusive patch that handles the Xid
wraparound just as pg_autovacuum used to, checking the Xid from

Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]alvh.no-ip.org>)
"Hay quien adquiere la mala costumbre de ser infeliz" (M. A. Evans)

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to