Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> ... I have resisted having VACUUM freeze
> >> tuples before they've reached a quite-respectable age, and I object to
> >> having CLUSTER do it either.
>
> > How about freezing anything older than vacuum_freeze_min_age, just like
> > VACUUM does?
>
> I suppose that'd be OK, but is it likely to be worth the trouble?
I think so, because it means that people using CLUSTER to keep the size
of tables in line instead of VACUUM, would not need the otherwise
mandatory VACUUM.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.