On 3/2/10 12:47 PM, Marc Munro wrote:
> To take it further still, if vacuum on the master could be prevented
> from touching records that are less than max_standby_delay seconds old,
> it would be safe to apply WAL from the very latest vacuum. I guess HOT
> could be handled similarly though that may eliminate much of the
> advantage of HOT updates.
Aside from the inability to convert between transcation count and time,
isn't this what vacuum_defer_cleanup_age is supposed to do? Or does it
not help with HOT updates?
--Josh Berkus
