On Thu, 11 May 2023 at 16:41, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
>
> > I say "exhaustion" or "overload" are meaningless because their meaning
> > is entirely dependent on context. It's not like memory exhaustion or
> > i/o overload where it's a finite resource and it's just the sheer
> > amount in use that matters.
>
> But transaction IDs are a finite resource, in the sense that you can
> never have more than about 2.1 billion distinct unfrozen XIDs at any
> one time. "Transaction ID exhaustion" is therefore a lot more
> descriptive of the underlying problem. It's a lot better than
> wraparound, which, as I've said, is inaccurate in two major ways:
I realize that's literally true that xids are a finite resource. But
that's not what people think of when you talk about exhausting a
finite resource.
It's not like there are 2 billion XIDs in a big pool being used and
returned and as long as you don't use too many XIDs leaving the pool
empty you're ok. When people talk about resource exhaustion they
imagine that they just need a faster machine or some other way of just
putting more XIDs in the pool so they can keep using them at a faster
rate.
I really think focusing on changing one term of art for another,
neither of which is at all meaningful without an extensive technical
explanation helps anyone. All it does is hide all the existing
explanations that are all over the internet from them.
> 1. Most cases involving xidStopLimit (or even single-user mode data
> corruption) won't involve any kind of physical integer wraparound.
Fwiw I've never actually bumped into anyone talking about integer
overflow (which isn't usually called "wraparound" anyways). And in any
case it's not a terrible misconception, it at least gives users a
reasonable model for how XID space consumption works. In fact it's not
even entirely wrong -- it's not the XID itself that's overflowing but
the difference between the XID and the frozen XID.
--
greg