Re: autovacuum_freeze_max_age

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jacques Caron <jc(at)oxado(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: autovacuum_freeze_max_age
Date: 2007-11-10 01:51:17
Message-ID: 7290.1194659477@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jacques Caron <jc(at)oxado(dot)com> writes:
> I was wondering why autovacuum_freeze_max_age actually can't be set
> at runtime... guc.c points to varsup.c which says:

Hmm. The original worry was that different uses might be out of sync,
but right offhand it doesn't look like anything catastrophic would
result from that. At least not with the current code; it's unclear
whether it'd stay safe in the face of changes.

> I'm not sure I understand what would need to be updated other than
> the variable itself? Obviously it would mean that it would only take
> effect the next time SetTransactionIdLimit is called, i.e. the next
> time VACUUM is run, but I guess this is always better than having to
> restart the database?

Uh, no, it's called only when we've advanced datfrozenxid,
which is a pretty uncommon event. So I think the real hole in the
proposal is that there would be a long and not-very-predictable delay
between changing the parameter and having it really take effect.

If there were a big use-case for changing this setting on the fly then
I'd be more worried about it, but I don't see one really ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-11-10 01:53:03 Re: Need for advice and direction (again)
Previous Message Scott Marlowe 2007-11-10 01:14:59 Re: [HACKERS] Is "query" a reserved word in 8.3 plpgsql?