Hi,
On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 12:25 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
<kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Bharath,
>
> Thanks for re-working the project.
Thank you for looking into this.
> While seeing the old discussion, I found that Robert Haas was agaist the XID-based
> invalidation, because it's difficult to determine the cutoff age [1].
> Can you clarify your thought against the point? Are you focusing on solving the
> wraparound issues, not for bloated instance issue?
> The code may not be accepted unless we got his agreement.
>
> [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoZTbaaEjSZUG1FL0mzxAdN3qmXksO3O9_PZhEuXTkVnRQ@mail.gmail.com
I summarized what others (Nathan, Robert, Amit, Alvaro, Bertrand) said
about it here with my responses:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALj2ACVY%2BFd5vC0VjW%3D5VDK9mmt-Y%2BPDZxnBp8ngGAZc24Vv9g%40mail.gmail.com.
Please have a look.
A good setting for this in production scenarios is to set
max_slot_xid_age to vacuum_failsafe_age (1.6B) or little less, so that
autovacuum invalidates the slot before entering failsafe mode,
unblocking datfrozenxid advancement and avoiding XID wraparound
without manual VACUUM or downtime. I added a test for this in the 0002
patch. Please have a look.
--
Bharath Rupireddy
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
