| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables |
| Date: | 2013-01-30 18:26:06 |
| Message-ID: | 20130130182606.GA31333@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-01-30 10:21:07 -0800, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > It seems to be broken since the initial introduction of
> > freeze_table_age in 6587818542e79012276dcfedb2f97e3522ee5e9b.
>
> > Trivial patch attached.
>
> I didn't see a patch attached.
The archive has it, so I for once haven't forgotten sending it:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20130130145521.GB3355@awork2.anarazel.de
While its a clear bug and fixing it in HEAD is a sure thing an argument
could be made that its a clear behavioural change in the back
branches. I don't think it holds too much water, but wanted to mention
it.
Andres
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-01-30 18:26:37 | Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-01-30 18:21:07 | Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables |