ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
>> Without this, very large read-only tables would require one round of
>> complete freezing if there are lot of transactional activities in the other parts
>> of the database. And when that happens, it would generate lots of unnecessary
>> IOs on these large tables.
>
> To make things worse, the freezing day comes at once because the first restore
> is done in a single or near transactions; The wraparound timings of many
> tables are aligned at the same time. Freezing copy will be the solution.
Hm.. Couldn't we eliminate that particular concern easily by adding some
randomness to the freeze_age?
regards, Florian Pflug
