Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? )
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? ) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1250205623.24981.128.camel@monkey-cat.sm.truviso.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? ) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? )
Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age100m? ) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 19:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > What are you envisioning exactly? If vacuum finds any reason to dirty > a page (or it's already dirty), then freeze everything on the page that's > got age > some lower threshold? Yes. There are two ways to do the threshold: 1. Constant fraction of vacuum_freeze_min_age 2. Extra GUC I lean toward #1, because it avoids an extra GUC*, and it avoids the awkwardness when the "lower" setting is higher than the "higher" setting. However, #2 might be nice for people who want to live on the edge or experiment with new values. But I suspect most of the advantage would be had just by saying that we opportunistically freeze tuples older than 50% of vacuum_freeze_min_age. Regards,Jeff Davis *: As an aside, these GUCs already have incredibly confusing names, and an extra variable would increase the confusion. For instance, they seem to use "min" and "max" interchangeably.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: