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 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 d
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
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. The
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
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> On 03/12/2014 06:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Josh Berkus 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'
On 03/12/2014 06:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Josh Berkus 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
co
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Josh Berkus 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 security fix. This
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 explai
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 pr
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 object
11 matches
Mail list logo
