Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Proposal: vacuum and autovacuum parameters to control freezing

From: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>,"Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>,"Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Proposal: vacuum and autovacuum parameters to control freezing
Date: 2006-11-05 18:24:55
Message-ID: 1162751095.3587.930.camel@silverbirch.site (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 12:01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:

> After re-reading the above, it strikes me that maybe names based around
> "freeze_min" and "freeze_max" would be useful?

Works for me. They are clearly related, yet different and allow a
straightforward explanation of their need and use.

e.g.

vacuum_freeze_min	The latest TransactionId that will be "frozen" during
a VACUUM is calculated by CurrentTransactionId - vacuum_freeze_min.

vacuum_freeze_max
The maximum age, calculated as distance from CurrentTransactionId, that
will be allowed before a autovacuum will be forced for that database
object.

-- 
  Simon Riggs             
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-11-05 18:28:34
Subject: Re: Proposal: vacuum and autovacuum parameters to control freezing
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2006-11-05 18:15:24
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Bug in WAL backup documentation

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-11-05 18:28:34
Subject: Re: Proposal: vacuum and autovacuum parameters to control freezing
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2006-11-05 18:15:24
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Bug in WAL backup documentation

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group