Re: 64-bit XIDs again - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Josh Berkus
Subject Re: 64-bit XIDs again
Date
Msg-id 55BC1073.6000207@agliodbs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to 64-bit XIDs again  (Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>)
Responses Re: 64-bit XIDs again  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 07/31/2015 02:46 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 07/31/2015 12:29 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> On 07/30/2015 07:24 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>>
>>> I think we should move to 64-bit XIDs in in-memory structs snapshots,
>>> proc array etc. And expand clog to handle 64-bit XIDs. But keep the
>>> xmin/xmax fields on heap pages at 32-bits, and add an epoch-like field
>>> to the page header so that logically the xmin/xmax fields on the page
>>> are 64 bits wide, but physically stored in 32 bits. That's possible as
>>> long as no two XIDs on the same page are more than 2^31 XIDs apart. So
>>> you still need to freeze old tuples on the page when that's about to
>>> happen, but it would make it possible to have more than 2^32 XID
>>> transactions in the clog. You'd never be forced to do anti-wraparound
>>> vacuums, you could just let the clog grow arbitrarily large
>>
>> When I introduced the same idea a few years back, having the clog get
>> arbitrarily large was cited as a major issue.  I was under the
>> impression that clog size had some major performance impacts.
> 
> Well, sure, if you don't want the clog to grow arbitrarily large, then
> you need to freeze. And most people would want to freeze regularly, to
> keep the clog size in check. The point is that you wouldn't *have* to do
> so at any particular time. You would never be up against the wall, in
> the "you must freeze now or your database will shut down" situation.

Well, we still have to freeze *eventually*.  Just not for 122,000 years
at current real transaction rates.  In 2025, though, we'll be having
this conversation again because of people doing 100 billion transactions
per second. ;-)

> I'm not sure what performance impact a very large clog might have. It
> takes some disk space (1 GB per 4 billion XIDs), and caching it takes
> some memory. And there is a small fixed number of CLOG buffers in shared
> memory. But I don't think there's any particularly nasty problem there.

Well, one way to find out, clearly.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: patch: prevent user from setting wal_buffers over 2GB bytes
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: 64-bit XIDs again