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?
Why don't you use CURRENT_TIMESTAMP?


> And your
> test case is unconvincing, because no sane DBA would run with such a
> small value of vacuum_freeze_min_age.

I intended to use the value for an accelerated test.
The penalties of freeze are divided for the long term in normal use,
but we surely suffer from them by bits.

Regards,
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

• Re: Aggressive freezing in lazy-vacuum at 2007-03-06 15:02:34 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: Aggressive freezing in lazy-vacuum at 2007-03-07 04:34:57 from Tom Lane

pgsql-performance by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2007-03-07 04:34:57
	Subject: Re: Aggressive freezing in lazy-vacuum
Previous:	From: Merlin Moncure	Date: 2007-03-07 02:12:03
	Subject: Re: compact flash disks?

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Jeff Davis	Date: 2007-03-07 02:28:30
	Subject: Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant
Previous:	From: Jeff Davis	Date: 2007-03-07 02:10:17
	Subject: Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant

pgsql-patches by date

Next:	From: Trevor Hardcastle	Date: 2007-03-07 03:06:29
	Subject: CREATE TABLE LIKE INCLUDING INDEXES support
Previous:	From: ITAGAKI Takahiro	Date: 2007-03-07 01:56:04
	Subject: Re: Aggressive freezing in lazy-vacuum