ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I said nothing about expired tuples.  The point of not freezing is to
>> preserve information about the insertion time of live tuples.

> I don't know what good it will do -- for debugging?

Exactly.  As an example, I've been chasing offline a report from Merlin
Moncure about duplicate entries in a unique index; I still don't know
what exactly is going on there, but the availability of knowledge about
which transactions inserted which entries has been really helpful.  If
we had a system designed to freeze tuples as soon as possible, that info
would have been gone forever pretty soon after the problem happened.

I don't say that this behavior can never be acceptable, but you need
much more than a marginal performance improvement to convince me that
it's worth the loss of forensic information.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: Aggressive freezing in lazy-vacuum at 2007-03-07 02:18:20 from ITAGAKI Takahiro

pgsql-performance by date

Next:	From: Gauri Kanekar	Date: 2007-03-07 06:43:55
	Subject: When the Record Got Updated.
Previous:	From: ITAGAKI Takahiro	Date: 2007-03-07 02:18:20
	Subject: Re: Aggressive freezing in lazy-vacuum

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: ITAGAKI Takahiro	Date: 2007-03-07 05:11:38
	Subject: Re: Log levels for checkpoint/bgwriter monitoring
Previous:	From: Greg Smith	Date: 2007-03-07 04:14:37
	Subject: Re: Log levels for checkpoint/bgwriter monitoring

pgsql-patches by date

Next:	From: NikhilS	Date: 2007-03-07 06:40:39
	Subject: Re: Auto creation of Partitions
Previous:	From: Trevor Hardcastle	Date: 2007-03-07 03:06:29
	Subject: CREATE TABLE LIKE INCLUDING INDEXES support