| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Idea for getting rid of VACUUM FREEZE on cold pages |
| Date: | 2010-06-04 17:35:59 |
| Message-ID: | 20379.1275672959@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> The idea that thousands of Postgres installations are slower just so we
> can occasionally debug xmin/xmax issues seems way off balance to me.
There's no evidence whatsoever that the scope of the problem is that large.
> If people want debugging, let them modify the freeze age settings; the
> defaults should not favor debugging when there is a measurable cost
> involved. How many times in the past five years have we even needed
> such debugging information, and also are cases where we could not have
> told the user to change freeze settings to get us that info?
You're missing the point here: this is something we need when trying
to make sense of cases that are hard or impossible to reproduce.
Retroactively changing the freeze policy isn't possible.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-06-04 17:46:16 | Re: [PATCH] Fix leaky VIEWs for RLS |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-06-04 17:20:15 | Re: Idea for getting rid of VACUUM FREEZE on cold pages |