Stephan Szabo wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>>Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com> writes:
>>
>>(a) within 200,000 transactions of wrap, every transaction start
>>delivers a WARNING message;
>>
>>(b) within 100,000 transactions, forced shutdown as above.
>
>
> This seems reasonable, although perhaps the former could be something
> configurable. I'm not sure there's a good reason to allow the latter to
> change unless there'd ever be a case where 100,000 transactions wasn't
> enough to vacuum or something like that.
>
> All in all, I figure that odds are very high that if someone isn't
> vacuuming in the rest of the transaction id space, either the transaction
> rate is high enough that 100,000 warning may not be enough or they aren't
> going to pay attention anyway and the howitzer might not be bad.
How would people feel about stopping after the first 100 transactions too?
Pro: Teaches the lesson straight away.
Con: Irritating
Con: Might not be enough time for automated installers
-- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
