| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? |
| Date: | 2009-08-12 21:33:44 |
| Message-ID: | 4A82EEE802000025000299AE@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Hmmm ... if you're using VACUUM FREEZE, its behavior is unaffected
> by this GUC anyway --- that option makes it use a freeze age of
> zero.
Yeah, I know, but feel like I'm being a bit naughty in using VACUUM
FREEZE -- the documentation says:
| Selects aggressive "freezing" of tuples. Specifying FREEZE is
| equivalent to performing VACUUM with the vacuum_freeze_min_age
| parameter set to zero. The FREEZE option is deprecated and will be
| removed in a future release; set the parameter instead.
So I figure that since it is deprecated, at some point I'll be setting
the vacuum_freeze_min_age option rather than leaving it at the default
and using VACUUM FREEZE in the nightly maintenance run.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-08-12 21:49:15 | Re: surprising trigger/foreign key interaction |
| Previous Message | Pierre Frédéric Caillaud | 2009-08-12 21:28:53 | Re: COPY speedup |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pierre Frédéric Caillaud | 2009-08-12 21:34:19 | Re: transaction delays to apply |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-08-12 21:22:11 | Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? |