Re: [HACKERS] Add database to PGXACT / per database vacuuming

2013-09-03 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> I don't know how big an impact adding the database oid would have, on the >> case that the PGPROC/PGXACT split was done in the first place. In the worst >> case it will make taking a snapshot 1/3 slower under contention. That needs >> to be

Re: [HACKERS] Add database to PGXACT / per database vacuuming

2013-08-30 Thread Andres Freund
On 2013-08-30 21:07:04 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 30.08.2013 19:01, Andres Freund wrote: > >For the logical decoding patch I added support for pegging > >RecentGlobalXmin (and GetOldestXmin) to a lower value. To avoid causing > >undue bloat& cpu overhead (hot pruning is friggin expensiv

Re: [HACKERS] Add database to PGXACT / per database vacuuming

2013-08-30 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 30.08.2013 21:07, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 30.08.2013 19:01, Andres Freund wrote: For the logical decoding patch I added support for pegging RecentGlobalXmin (and GetOldestXmin) to a lower value. To avoid causing undue bloat& cpu overhead (hot pruning is friggin expensive) I split RecentG

Re: [HACKERS] Add database to PGXACT / per database vacuuming

2013-08-30 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 30.08.2013 19:01, Andres Freund wrote: For the logical decoding patch I added support for pegging RecentGlobalXmin (and GetOldestXmin) to a lower value. To avoid causing undue bloat& cpu overhead (hot pruning is friggin expensive) I split RecentGlobalXmin into RecentGlobalXmin and RecentGloba

[HACKERS] Add database to PGXACT / per database vacuuming

2013-08-30 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, For the logical decoding patch I added support for pegging RecentGlobalXmin (and GetOldestXmin) to a lower value. To avoid causing undue bloat & cpu overhead (hot pruning is friggin expensive) I split RecentGlobalXmin into RecentGlobalXmin and RecentGlobalDataXmin where the latter is the the x