Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?
Date: 2009-08-12 21:33:44
Message-ID: 4A82EEE802000025000299AE@gw.wicourts.gov (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-performance
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote: 
 
> Hmmm ... if you're using VACUUM FREEZE, its behavior is unaffected
> by this GUC anyway --- that option makes it use a freeze age of
> zero.
 
Yeah, I know, but feel like I'm being a bit naughty in using VACUUM
FREEZE -- the documentation says:
 
| 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.
 
So I figure that since it is deprecated, at some point I'll be setting
the vacuum_freeze_min_age option rather than leaving it at the default
and using VACUUM FREEZE in the nightly maintenance run.
 
-Kevin

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Pierre Frédéric CaillaudDate: 2009-08-12 21:34:19
Subject: Re: transaction delays to apply
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-08-12 21:22:11
Subject: Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-08-12 21:49:15
Subject: Re: surprising trigger/foreign key interaction
Previous:From: Pierre Frédéric CaillaudDate: 2009-08-12 21:28:53
Subject: Re: COPY speedup

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group