Re: Visibility map and freezing
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Visibility map and freezing |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1231521950.25019.41.camel@jdavis обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Visibility map and freezing (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Visibility map and freezing
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 13:49 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Thinking about this some more, I'm not too happy with those names > either. vacuum_freeze_scan_age and autovacuum_freeze_scan_age don't mean > quite the same thing, like vacuum_cost_delay and > autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay do, for example. If the distinction you're making is that autovacuum_freeze_max_age affects the launching of a vacuum rather than the behavior of a vacuum, maybe we could incorporate the word "launch" like: autovacuum_launch_freeze_threshold > I'm now leaning towards: > > autovacuum_freeze_max_age > vacuum_freeze_table_age > vacuum_freeze_min_age > > where autovacuum_freeze_max_age and vacuum_freeze_min_age are unchanged, > and vacuum_freeze_table_age is the new setting that controls when VACUUM > or autovacuum should perform a full scan of the table to advance > relfrozenxid. I'm still bothered by the fact that "max" and "min" really mean the same thing here. I don't think we can perfectly capture the meaning of these GUCs in the name. I think our goal should be to avoid confusion between them. Regards,Jeff Davis
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: