Re: Aggressive freezing in lazy-vacuum
| От | ITAGAKI Takahiro |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Aggressive freezing in lazy-vacuum |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 20070307110352.5E09.ITAGAKI.TAKAHIRO@oss.ntt.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Aggressive freezing in lazy-vacuum (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Aggressive freezing in lazy-vacuum
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I said nothing about expired tuples. The point of not freezing is to > preserve information about the insertion time of live tuples. I don't know what good it will do -- for debugging? Why don't you use CURRENT_TIMESTAMP? > And your > test case is unconvincing, because no sane DBA would run with such a > small value of vacuum_freeze_min_age. I intended to use the value for an accelerated test. The penalties of freeze are divided for the long term in normal use, but we surely suffer from them by bits. Regards, --- ITAGAKI Takahiro NTT Open Source Software Center
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: