| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? ) |
| Date: | 2009-08-15 23:02:03 |
| Message-ID: | 1250377323.9960.2.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On fre, 2009-08-14 at 13:57 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Looking at the definitions of vacuum_freeze_min_age and
> autovacuum_freeze_max_age there seems to be almost no distinction
> between "min" and "max" in those two names.
For min, the action happens at or above the min values. For max, the
action happens at or below the max value.
With those two particular parameters, the freezing happens exactly
between the min and the max value.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-08-15 23:13:42 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove tabs from SGML. |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-08-15 22:36:54 | Re: GRANT ON ALL IN schema |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-08-15 23:55:41 | Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? ) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-08-15 20:10:57 | Re: Memory reporting on CentOS Linux |