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?
In response to
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.|