| 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 23:05:57 |
| Message-ID: | 29393.1250204757@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:
> On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 18:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Everybody *thinks* they don't care about forensic evidence. Until they
>> need it.
> We already allow setting vacuum_freeze_min_age to zero, so I don't see a
> solution here other than documentation.
Yeah, we allow it. I just don't want to encourage it ... and definitely
not make it default.
What are you envisioning exactly? If vacuum finds any reason to dirty
a page (or it's already dirty), then freeze everything on the page that's
got age > some lower threshold?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-08-13 23:07:39 | Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? ) |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-08-13 23:01:08 | Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? ) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-08-13 23:07:39 | Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? ) |
| Previous Message | David Kerr | 2009-08-13 23:04:00 | Re: Under the hood of views |