| From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: New IndexAM API controlling index vacuum strategies |
| Date: | 2021-03-23 06:54:48 |
| Message-ID: | CAD21AoCe3txc-HvAAiPgE_D4YizkFhSzNxzL5K-vUicWAD5S7Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:41 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:33 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> > More concretely, maybe the new GUC is forced to be 1.05 of
> > vacuum_freeze_table_age. Of course that scheme is a bit arbitrary --
> > but so is the existing 0.95 scheme.
>
> I meant to write 1.05 of autovacuum_vacuum_max_age. So just as
> vacuum_freeze_table_age cannot really be greater than 0.95 *
> autovacuum_vacuum_max_age, your new GUC cannot really be less than
> 1.05 * autovacuum_vacuum_max_age.
That makes sense to me.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2021-03-23 07:03:25 | Re: [PATCH] Tracking statements entry timestamp in pg_stat_statements |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2021-03-23 06:53:18 | Re: New IndexAM API controlling index vacuum strategies |