| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: documention wrong or just not clear? |
| Date: | 2007-03-22 21:29:08 |
| Message-ID: | 27493.1174598948@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> writes:
> In http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/static/routine-vacuuming.html it says:
> "The age column measures the number of transactions from the cutoff XID to the
> current transaction's XID. Immediately after a VACUUM, age(relfrozenxid)
> should be a little more than the vacuum_freeze_min_age setting that was used
> (more by the number of transactions started since the VACUUM started). "
> However my results don't seem to bear that out:
I would imagine that your database (or at least some of your tables) are
not yet vacuum_freeze_min_age transactions old.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ray Stell | 2007-03-23 18:16:26 | no verification of client certificate? |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2007-03-22 21:15:20 | documention wrong or just not clear? |