| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Visibility map and freezing |
| Date: | 2009-01-07 08:21:32 |
| Message-ID: | 1231316492.9691.31.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 09:34 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> autovacuum_freeze_max_age -> autovacuum_freeze_scan_age
> vacuum_freeze_max_age -> vacuum_freeze_scan_age
> vacuum_freeze_min_age -> vacuum_freeze_tuple_age
>
> *_scan_age settings control when the table is fully scanned to freeze
> tuples and advance relfrozenxid, and vacuum_freeze_tuple_age controls
> how old a tuple needs to be to be frozen. One objection is that you can
> read "freeze_scan" to mean that a scan is frozen, like a tuple is
> frozen. Any better ideas?
I see what you mean about the possible misinterpretation, but I think
it's a big improvement, and I don't have a better suggestion.
Thanks,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martin Pihlak | 2009-01-07 08:32:17 | Re: SQL/MED dummy vs postgresql wrapper |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-01-07 07:34:05 | Re: Visibility map and freezing |