On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 at 16:53, Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: >
> Imagine if we actually had 64-bit XIDs -- let's assume for a moment > that it's a done deal. This raises a somewhat awkward question: do you > just let the system get further and further behind on freezing, > forever? We can all agree that 2 billion XIDs is very likely the wrong > time to start refusing new XIDs -- because it just isn't designed with > debt in mind. But what's the right time, if any? How much debt is too > much? My first thought was... why not? Just let the system get further and further behind on freezing. Where's the harm? Picture an insert-only database that is receiving data very quickly never having data deleted or modified. vacuum takes several days to complete and the system wraps 32-bit xid several times a day. The DBA asks you why are they even bothering running vacuum? They have plenty of storage for clog, latency on selects is not a pain point, not compared to running multi-day vacuums that impact insert times.... That isn't far off the scenario where I've seen wraparound being a pain btw. Anti-wraparound vacuum took about 2 days and was kicking off pretty much as soon as the previous one finished. For a table that was mostly read-only. Of course to make the judgement the DBA needs to have good ways to measure the space usage of clog, and the overhead caused by clog lookups that could be avoided. Then they can judge for themselves how much freezing is appropriate. -- greg
