Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-10-17 at 10:25, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
>
>>OK. So here is what I understand. I have a table which contains 100 rows which
>>appeated there due to some insert operation. Then I vacuum it. And sit there for
>>internity for rest of the database to approach the singularity(the xid
>>wraparound..:-) Nice term, isn't it?).
>>
>>So this static table is vulnerable to xid wraparound? I doubt.
>
>
> No that table would probably be ok, because you did a vacuum on it after
> the inserts. The problem is that pg_autovacuum may choose not to do a
> vacuum if you didn't cross a threshold, or someone outside of
> pg_autovacuum may have done the vacuum and autovac doesn't know about
> it, so it can't guarantee that all tables in the database are safe from
> xid wraparound.
>
> One additional thing, some of this might be possible if pg_autovacuum
> saved its data between restarts. Right now it restarts with no memory
> of what happened before.
Well, the unmaintened gborg version adopted approach of storing such info. in a
table, so that it survives postgresql/pg_atuvacuum restart or both.
That was considered a tablespace pollution back then. But personally I think, it
should be ok. If ever it goes to catalogues, I would rather add few columns to
pg_class for such a stat. But again, thats not my call to make.
Shridhar
