| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Draft release notes for 9.3.2 |
| Date: | 2013-12-02 19:24:00 |
| Message-ID: | 20131202192400.GD15336@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-12-02 10:51:28 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Tom,
>
> "The issue can be ameliorated by, after upgrading, vacuuming all tables
> in all databases while having vacuum_freeze_table_age set to zero. "
>
> Why not say:
>
> "This issue can be ameliorated by, after upgrading, running a
> database-wide VACUUM FREEZE."
>
> Or is there a difference in this case? If so, what?
vacuum_freeze_table age causes a full table scan, but doesn't freeze
rows younger than vacuum_freeze_min_age. I.e. it finishes much faster.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-12-02 19:29:06 | Re: Draft release notes for 9.3.2 |
| Previous Message | Mika Eloranta | 2013-12-02 19:11:41 | Re: Draft release notes for 9.3.2 |