From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Removing more vacuumlazy.c special cases, relfrozenxid optimizations |
Date: | 2022-01-20 19:33:03 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmobr_95jt2GwLoDYbE=t6ChXBvv3U48F8HJyjYUikY2Gnw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 11:45 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> My thinking on vacuum_freeze_min_age has shifted very slightly. I now
> think that I'll probably need to keep it around, just so things like
> VACUUM FREEZE (which sets vacuum_freeze_min_age to 0 internally)
> continue to work. So maybe its default should be changed to -1, which
> is interpreted as "whatever autovacuum_freeze_max_age/2 is". But it
> should still be greatly deemphasized in user docs.
I like that better, because it lets us retain an escape valve in case
we should need it. I suggest that the documentation should say things
like "The default is believed to be suitable for most use cases" or
"We are not aware of a reason to change the default" rather than
something like "There is almost certainly no good reason to change
this" or "What kind of idiot are you, anyway?" :-)
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ilaria Battiston | 2022-01-20 19:33:28 | GSoC 2022 |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-01-20 19:23:45 | autovacuum prioritization |