Re: Doc fix of aggressive vacuum threshold for multixact members storage - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From John Naylor
Subject Re: Doc fix of aggressive vacuum threshold for multixact members storage
Date
Msg-id CANWCAZb9hb3NWQoOFkwP1dBW-OU43hG26EVkXAZMHDz8FSNgGA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Doc fix of aggressive vacuum threshold for multixact members storage  (Alex Friedman <alexf01@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Doc fix of aggressive vacuum threshold for multixact members storage
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 9:22 PM Alex Friedman <alexf01@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I decided to leave this out, since I just remembered that the most
> > likely change is actually to move to 64-bit offsets, as was proposed
> > here and has some enthusiastic support:
> >
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CACG=ezaWg7_nt-8ey4aKv2w9LcuLthHknwCawmBgEeTnJrJTcw@mail.gmail.com
>
> Thanks for the review and the draft, looks good to me, and I'm okay
> with doing this without the code comments. However, it seems like that
> thread is just the beginning of wider changes (if they indeed happen),
> which may impact these calculations as well, and then maybe a doc
> update reminder may come in useful?

The latest patch in that thread blows away the calculations as they
are. Even if that proposal doesn't happen, or is done differently, it
shows that we can't really predict how the code will change, and a
doc-update reminder here seems like closing the door after the horses
have left the barn.

--
John Naylor
Amazon Web Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jaime Casanova
Date:
Subject: is git.postgresql.org working fine?
Next
From: Daniel Gustafsson
Date:
Subject: Re: ecdh support causes unnecessary roundtrips