| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 23:01:08 |
| Message-ID: | 1250204468.24981.94.camel@monkey-cat.sm.truviso.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 18:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, making the limit "slushy" would doubtless save some writes, with
> not a lot of downside.
OK, then should we make this a TODO? I'll make an attempt at this.
> > 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.
We already allow setting vacuum_freeze_min_age to zero, so I don't see a
solution here other than documentation.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-08-13 23:05:57 | Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? ) |
| Previous Message | Stef Walter | 2009-08-13 22:50:35 | pg_hba.conf: samehost and samenet |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Kerr | 2009-08-13 23:04:00 | Re: Under the hood of views |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-08-13 22:46:10 | Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? ) |