| From: | Torsten Zühlsdorff <foo(at)meisterderspiele(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? |
| Date: | 2009-08-12 06:48:45 |
| Message-ID: | h5tp40$5u4$1@news.eternal-september.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Tom Lane schrieb:
> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> I've just been tweaking some autovac settings for a large database, and
>> came to wonder: why does vacuum_max_freeze_age default to such a high
>> number? What's the logic behind that?
>
> (1) not destroying potentially useful forensic evidence too soon;
> (2) there's not really much to be gained by reducing it.
If there is not really much to gain by changing the value, why do not
remove the parameter?
Greetings from germany,
Torsten
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-08-12 07:57:12 | Re: Alpha 1 release notes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-08-12 05:00:54 | Re: pgindent timing (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Refactor NUM_cache_remove calls in error report path to a PG_TRY) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nickolay | 2009-08-12 16:24:52 | transaction delays to apply |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-08-12 01:11:37 | Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? |