Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?
Date: 2009-08-11 21:14:12
Message-ID: 4A81DF24.5000102@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

All,

I've just been tweaking some autovac settings for a large database, and
came to wonder: why does vacuum_max_freeze_age default to such a high
number? What's the logic behind that?

AFAIK, you want max_freeze_age to be the largest possible interval of
XIDs where an existing transaction might still be in scope, but no
larger. Yes?

If that's the case, I'd assert that users who do actually go through
100M XIDs within a transaction window are probably doing some
hand-tuning. And we could lower the default for most users
considerably, such as to 1 million.

Have I missed something?

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
www.pgexperts.com

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2009-08-11 21:18:38 Re: autogenerating headers & bki stuff
Previous Message Robert Haas 2009-08-11 21:13:21 Re: "Hot standby"?

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2009-08-11 21:23:59 Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?
Previous Message Devin Ben-Hur 2009-08-10 18:41:53 Re: SQL select query becomes slow when using limit (with no offset)