| From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | <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 18:24:55 |
| Message-ID: | 1162751095.3587.930.camel@silverbirch.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 12:01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> After re-reading the above, it strikes me that maybe names based around
> "freeze_min" and "freeze_max" would be useful?
Works for me. They are clearly related, yet different and allow a
straightforward explanation of their need and use.
e.g.
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.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-11-05 18:28:34 | Re: Proposal: vacuum and autovacuum parameters to control freezing |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-11-05 18:15:24 | Re: [HACKERS] Bug in WAL backup documentation |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-11-05 18:28:34 | Re: Proposal: vacuum and autovacuum parameters to control freezing |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-11-05 18:15:24 | Re: [HACKERS] Bug in WAL backup documentation |