Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Kevin Grittner
Subject Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?
Date
Msg-id 4A82EEE802000025000299AE@gw.wicourts.gov
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-performance
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Hmmm ... if you're using VACUUM FREEZE, its behavior is unaffected
> by this GUC anyway --- that option makes it use a freeze age of
> zero.

Yeah, I know, but feel like I'm being a bit naughty in using VACUUM
FREEZE -- the documentation says:

| Selects aggressive "freezing" of tuples. Specifying FREEZE is
| equivalent to performing VACUUM with the vacuum_freeze_min_age
| parameter set to zero. The FREEZE option is deprecated and will be
| removed in a future release; set the parameter instead.

So I figure that since it is deprecated, at some point I'll be setting
the vacuum_freeze_min_age option rather than leaving it at the default
and using VACUUM FREEZE in the nightly maintenance run.

-Kevin

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Pierre Frédéric Caillaud
Date:
Subject: Re: transaction delays to apply
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: transaction delays to apply