| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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 17:01:54 |
| Message-ID: | 15737.1162746114@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
I wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> Perhaps you could edit the above if needed?
> <---- Xids older than freeze_distance will be frozen whenever
> next visited by VACUUM, but there is no forcing function
> until they exceed freeze_limit
>> In that case,
>> maybe slightly more differentiated names would be appropriate.
> Got a suggestion? I think the names *should* be clearly related, but
> as I said, I'm by no means wedded to these particular ones.
After re-reading the above, it strikes me that maybe names based around
"freeze_min" and "freeze_max" would be useful?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-11-05 18:15:24 | Re: [HACKERS] Bug in WAL backup documentation |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-11-05 16:49:36 | Re: [HACKERS] Bug in WAL backup documentation |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-11-05 18:15:24 | Re: [HACKERS] Bug in WAL backup documentation |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-11-05 16:49:36 | Re: [HACKERS] Bug in WAL backup documentation |