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

Re: Proposal: vacuum and autovacuum parameters to control freezing

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Proposal: vacuum and autovacuum parameters to control freezing
Date: 2006-11-05 19:47:28
Message-ID: 87bqnlvfov.fsf@enterprisedb.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
"Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:

> vacuum_freeze_min	The latest TransactionId that will be "frozen" during
> a VACUUM is calculated by CurrentTransactionId - vacuum_freeze_min.
>
> vacuum_freeze_max
> The maximum age, calculated as distance from CurrentTransactionId, that
> will be allowed before a autovacuum will be forced for that database
> object.

I think it's clearer if "min" and "max" are considered adjectives and always
have a subject they modify. Otherwise it's unclear what they refer to.

So "vacuum_freeze_min_age" and "vacuum_freeze_max_age" instead. 

That way it's unambiguous which is which. Ie, that it's minimum and maximum
age and not minimum and maximum transaction id which would be the other way
around.

-- 
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2006-11-05 20:33:32
Subject: Re: NULL in arrays
Previous:From: Guillaume LelargeDate: 2006-11-05 19:23:59
Subject: NULL in arrays

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2006-11-05 21:14:17
Subject: WIP 2 interpreters for plperl
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-11-05 18:28:34
Subject: Re: Proposal: vacuum and autovacuum parameters to control freezing

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