Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> >>> 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.
>
> Fair enough. Who will fix the already-applied patch?
Here is my proposed patch.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
