On 11/6/07, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Jeff Davis wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 09:52 +0000, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> It's not useful for VACUUM FREEZE, unless we're willing to freeze much
> >> more aggressively, and change the meaning of a set bit to "all tuples on
> >> heap page are frozen".
> >
> > This means that a regular VACUUM will no longer be enough to ensure
> > safety from transaction id wraparound.
>
> Good point. So we'd still need regular VACUUMs every now and then.
>
> (Gosh, we really need a name for the sort of vacuum. I was about to say
> "we'd still need regular regular VACUUMs" :-))
As the new VACUUM variant will be somewhat unsafe, it should
not replace "regular" VACUUM but get separate name.
VACUUM FAST maybe? Informally "fastvacuum". Something with
"lazy" or "partial" would also be possibility.
--
marko