Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?
Date: 2009-08-12 00:54:44
Message-ID: 1849.1250038484@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> I've just been tweaking some autovac settings for a large database, and
> came to wonder: why does vacuum_max_freeze_age default to such a high
> number? What's the logic behind that?

(1) not destroying potentially useful forensic evidence too soon;
(2) there's not really much to be gained by reducing it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-08-12 01:00:17 Re: dependencies for generated header files
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2009-08-12 00:52:47 Re: WIP: getting rid of the pg_database flat file

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2009-08-12 01:11:37 Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2009-08-11 22:06:54 Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?