| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <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 19:47:28 |
| Message-ID: | 87bqnlvfov.fsf@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> vacuum_freeze_min The latest TransactionId that will be "frozen" during
> a VACUUM is calculated by CurrentTransactionId - vacuum_freeze_min.
>
> vacuum_freeze_max
> The maximum age, calculated as distance from CurrentTransactionId, that
> will be allowed before a autovacuum will be forced for that database
> object.
I think it's clearer if "min" and "max" are considered adjectives and always
have a subject they modify. Otherwise it's unclear what they refer to.
So "vacuum_freeze_min_age" and "vacuum_freeze_max_age" instead.
That way it's unambiguous which is which. Ie, that it's minimum and maximum
age and not minimum and maximum transaction id which would be the other way
around.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-11-05 20:33:32 | Re: NULL in arrays |
| Previous Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2006-11-05 19:23:59 | NULL in arrays |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-11-05 21:14:17 | WIP 2 interpreters for plperl |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-11-05 18:28:34 | Re: Proposal: vacuum and autovacuum parameters to control freezing |