On 3/2/10 12:47 PM, Marc Munro wrote:
> To take it further still, if vacuum on the master could be prevented
> from touching records that are less than max_standby_delay seconds old,
> it would be safe to apply WAL from the very latest vacuum.  I guess HOT
> could be handled similarly though that may eliminate much of the
> advantage of HOT updates.

Aside from the inability to convert between transcation count and time,
isn't this what vacuum_defer_cleanup_age is supposed to do?  Or does it
not help with HOT updates?


--Josh Berkus

In response to

• Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming Replication integration at 2010-03-02 20:47:30 from Marc Munro

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Andrew Dunstan	Date: 2010-03-03 00:23:39
	Subject: Re: USE_LIBXSLT in MSVC builds
Previous:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2010-03-02 23:54:28
	Subject: Re: Avoiding bad prepared-statement plans.