From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | 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: | 2009-08-13 22:46:10 |
Message-ID: | 29103.1250203570@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> Let's say that we had a range like 50-100M, where if it's older than
> 100M, we freeze it, and if it's older than 50M we freeze it only if it's
> on a dirty page. We would still have forensic evidence, but we could
> make a range such that we avoid writing multiple times.
Yeah, making the limit "slushy" would doubtless save some writes, with
not a lot of downside.
> And people who don't care about forensic evidence can set it to 0-100M.
Everybody *thinks* they don't care about forensic evidence. Until they
need it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stef Walter | 2009-08-13 22:50:35 | pg_hba.conf: samehost and samenet |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-08-13 22:35:32 | Re: [PERFORM] Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? ) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-08-13 23:01:08 | Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? ) |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-08-13 22:35:32 | Re: [PERFORM] Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? ) |