Re: Return of the Solaris vacuum polling problem -- anyone remember this?

Applied.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > > OK, I have attached a proposed patch to improve this. I moved the
> > > pg_clog mention to a new paragraph and linked it to the reason the
> > > default is relatively low.
> >
> > The references to "vacuum freeze" are incorrect; autovacuum does NOT
> > do the equivalent of VACUUM FREEZE. Please stop playing around with
> > the perfectly good existing wording.
>
> Uh, so VACUUM FREEZE unconditionally freezes all rows, while vacuum just
> freezes rows who's xid is older than vacuum_freeze_min_age? I saw that
> in our current docs in reference to VACUUM FREEZE:
>
> Selects aggressive "freezing" of tuples. Specifying FREEZE is
> equivalent to performing VACUUM with the vacuum_freeze_min_age
> parameter set to zero. The FREEZE option is deprecated and
> will be removed in a future release; set the parameter instead.
>
> Updated patch attached.
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
> EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
>
> + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +