Re: [PATCH] Support Int64 GUCs
Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
From: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
To: wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
Li Japin <japinli@hotmail.com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Date: 2024-09-26T15:55:07Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 12:30 PM wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx@gmail.com> wrote: > I think we need int64 GUCs, due to these parameters（ autovacuum_freeze_table_age, autovacuum_freeze_max_age,When a table age is greater than any of these parameters an aggressive vacuum will be performed, When we implementing xid64, is it still necessary to be in the int range? btw, I have a suggestion to record a warning in the log when the table age exceeds the int maximum. These default values we can set a reasonable values ,for example autovacuum_freeze_max_age=4294967295 or 8589934592. In principle, even with 64-bit transaction ids we could specify *_age GUCs as int32 with bigger units or as float8. That feels a bit awkward for me. This is why I queried more about Tom's opinion in more details: did he propose to wait with int64 GUCs before we have 64-bit transaction ids, or give up about them completely? Links. 1. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3649727.1727276882%40sss.pgh.pa.us ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov Supabase