On 03/12/2014 09:45 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
In hindsight, I think permanent multixids in their current form was a
mistake. Before 9.3, the thing that made multixids special was that they
could just be thrown away at a restart. They didn't need freezing. Now
that they do, why not just use
On 2014-04-16 11:10:52 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 03/12/2014 09:45 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
In hindsight, I think permanent multixids in their current form was a
mistake. Before 9.3, the thing that made multixids special was that they
could just be thrown away at a restart. They
On 04/16/2014 11:22 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
I'm serious. The multixact stuff has been broken since 9.3
was released, and it's *still* broken. We can't give users any guidance
or tools on how to set multixact stuff, and autovacuum doesn't handle it
properly.
Sorry, but I think you're
On 2014-04-16 11:25:49 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 04/16/2014 11:22 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
I'm serious. The multixact stuff has been broken since 9.3
was released, and it's *still* broken. We can't give users any guidance
or tools on how to set multixact stuff, and autovacuum doesn't
On 04/16/2014 11:30 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-04-16 11:25:49 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 04/16/2014 11:22 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
I'm serious. The multixact stuff has been broken since 9.3
was released, and it's *still* broken. We can't give users any guidance
or tools on how to set
Josh Berkus wrote:
What makes these GUCs worse is that nobody knows how to set them; nobody
on this list and nobody in the field. Heck, I doubt 1 in 1000 of our
users (or 1 in 10 people on this list) know what a multixact *is*.
I won't contend your first statement, but multixacts are
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
In the 9.3.3 updates, we added three new GUCs to control multixact
freezing. This was an unprecented move in my memory -- I can't recall
ever adding a GUC to a minor release which wasn't backwards
compatibility for a
On 03/12/2014 06:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
In the 9.3.3 updates, we added three new GUCs to control multixact
freezing. This was an unprecented move in my memory -- I can't recall
ever adding a GUC to a minor release which
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 03/12/2014 06:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
In the 9.3.3 updates, we added three new GUCs to control multixact
freezing. This was an
Hackers,
In the 9.3.3 updates, we added three new GUCs to control multixact
freezing. This was an unprecented move in my memory -- I can't recall
ever adding a GUC to a minor release which wasn't backwards
compatibility for a security fix. This was a mistake.
What makes these GUCs worse is
Sigh ...
Josh Berkus wrote:
Further, there's no clear justification why these cannot be set to be
the same as our other freeze ages (which our users also don't
understand), or a constant calculated portion of them, or just a
constant.
Calculated portion was my first proposal. The objection
Josh Berkus wrote
Hackers,
In the 9.3.3 updates, we added three new GUCs to control multixact
freezing. This was an unprecented move in my memory -- I can't recall
ever adding a GUC to a minor release which wasn't backwards
compatibility for a security fix. This was a mistake.
It
12 matches
Mail list logo
