Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I can't imagine that anybody with a large database ran pg
> successfully with a small freeze_min_age due to this.
I can't speak to this from personal experience, because at
Wisconsin Courts we found ourselves best served by running a
database VACUUM FREEZE ANALYZE each night during off-peak hours.
> It seems to be broken since the initial introduction of
> freeze_table_age in 6587818542e79012276dcfedb2f97e3522ee5e9b.
> Trivial patch attached.
I didn't see a patch attached.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andres Freund||Date: 2013-01-30 18:26:06|
|Subject: Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables|
|Previous:||From: Pavan Deolasee||Date: 2013-01-30 18:07:41|
|Subject: Re: lazy_vacuum_heap()'s removal of HEAPTUPLE_DEAD tuples|