Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? )

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? )
Date: 2009-08-13 22:46:10
Message-ID: 29103.1250203570@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> Let's say that we had a range like 50-100M, where if it's older than
> 100M, we freeze it, and if it's older than 50M we freeze it only if it's
> on a dirty page. We would still have forensic evidence, but we could
> make a range such that we avoid writing multiple times.

Yeah, making the limit "slushy" would doubtless save some writes, with
not a lot of downside.

> And people who don't care about forensic evidence can set it to 0-100M.

Everybody *thinks* they don't care about forensic evidence. Until they
need it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stef Walter 2009-08-13 22:50:35 pg_hba.conf: samehost and samenet
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2009-08-13 22:35:32 Re: [PERFORM] Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? )

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2009-08-13 23:01:08 Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? )
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2009-08-13 22:35:32 Re: [PERFORM] Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? )