Re: Aggressive freezing in lazy-vacuum - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From ITAGAKI Takahiro
Subject Re: Aggressive freezing in lazy-vacuum
Date
Msg-id 20070307110352.5E09.ITAGAKI.TAKAHIRO@oss.ntt.co.jp
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Aggressive freezing in lazy-vacuum  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Aggressive freezing in lazy-vacuum  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List 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




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant
Next
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant