Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?

От: Tom Lane
Тема: Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?
Дата: ,
Msg-id: 10661.1250114254@sss.pgh.pa.us
(см: обсуждение, исходный текст)
Ответ на: Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?  ("Kevin Grittner")
Ответы: Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?  (Robert Haas)
Список: pgsql-performance

Скрыть дерево обсуждения

Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?  (Josh Berkus, )
 Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?  (Josh Berkus, )
  Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?  (Robert Haas, )
   Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?  (Josh Berkus, )
    Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?  (Robert Haas, )
     Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?  (Josh Berkus, )
      Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?  (Robert Haas, )
 Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?  (Tom Lane, )
  Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?  ("Kevin Grittner", )
   Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?  (Tom Lane, )
    Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?  ("Kevin Grittner", )
     Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?  (Tom Lane, )
      Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?  (Robert Haas, )
       Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?  ("Kevin Grittner", )
  Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?  (Torsten Zühlsdorff, )
 freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? )  (Jeff Davis, )
  Re: [HACKERS] freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? )  (Alvaro Herrera, )
   Re: [HACKERS] freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age100m? )  ("Kevin Grittner", )
   Re: Re: [HACKERS] freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? )  (Josh Berkus, )
  Re: [HACKERS] freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? )  (Robert Haas, )

"Kevin Grittner" <> writes:
> Yeah, I know, but feel like I'm being a bit naughty in using VACUUM
> FREEZE -- the documentation says:

> | Selects aggressive "freezing" of tuples. Specifying FREEZE is
> | equivalent to performing VACUUM with the vacuum_freeze_min_age
> | parameter set to zero. The FREEZE option is deprecated and will be
> | removed in a future release; set the parameter instead.

> So I figure that since it is deprecated, at some point I'll be setting
> the vacuum_freeze_min_age option rather than leaving it at the default
> and using VACUUM FREEZE in the nightly maintenance run.

I might be mistaken, but I think the reason we're planning to remove the
option is mainly so we can get rid of FREEZE as a semi-reserved keyword.
The GUC isn't going anywhere.

Anyway, the bottom line is what you said: fooling with this setting
seems like something that's only needed by advanced users.

            regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-performance по дате сообщения:

От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?
От: Torsten Zühlsdorff
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?