| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Return of the Solaris vacuum polling problem -- anyone remember this? |
| Date: | 2010-08-23 19:24:21 |
| Message-ID: | 201008231924.o7NJOL616202@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > OK, I have attached a proposed patch to improve this. I moved the
> > pg_clog mention to a new paragraph and linked it to the reason the
> > default is relatively low.
>
> The references to "vacuum freeze" are incorrect; autovacuum does NOT
> do the equivalent of VACUUM FREEZE. Please stop playing around with
> the perfectly good existing wording.
Uh, so VACUUM FREEZE unconditionally freezes all rows, while vacuum just
freezes rows who's xid is older than vacuum_freeze_min_age? I saw that
in our current docs in reference to VACUUM FREEZE:
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.
Updated patch attached.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| /pgpatches/autovac | text/x-diff | 1.9 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-08-23 19:25:13 | Re: Return of the Solaris vacuum polling problem -- anyone remember this? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-23 19:20:39 | Re: WIP: extensible enums |