Re: Per-Table vacuum_freeze_min_age

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Chris Bisnett <cbisnett(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Per-Table vacuum_freeze_min_age
Date: 2022-04-06 22:22:22
Message-ID: 3185187.1649283742@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Chris Bisnett <cbisnett(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> The only downside I’ve seen is that this is a global setting and my
> understanding is that this would cause decreased performance when used with
> tables with a lot of writes and deletes. Is there a technical reason this
> setting cannot be applied at the database or table context like other
> autovacuum settings?

There's an autovacuum_freeze_min_age reloption, isn't that
what you need?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Adrian Klaver 2022-04-06 22:24:12 Re: Per-Table vacuum_freeze_min_age
Previous Message Chris Bisnett 2022-04-06 22:13:24 Per-Table vacuum_freeze_min_age