Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?

"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> 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.

I might be mistaken, but I think the reason we're planning to remove the
option is mainly so we can get rid of FREEZE as a semi-reserved keyword.
The GUC isn't going anywhere.

Anyway, the bottom line is what you said: fooling with this setting
seems like something that's only needed by advanced users.

regards, tom lane