Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZKFZ054vFs6DZbVbQF2kGeEUT9BJbDuAk+YOwTEhgzmw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
> As an aside, it does seem like log_autovacuum_min_duration=0 should
> log whether a scan_all was done, and if so what relfrozenxid got set
> to.

That would be nifty.

> [1] I don't know why it is that a scan_all vacuum with a
> freeze_min_age of 50m (or a freezeLimit of 50 million ago) will not
> set relfrozenxid to a higher value than that if it discovers that it
> can, but it doesn't seem to.

That also seems very much worth fixing.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Suggestion: Issue warning when calling SET TRANSACTION outside transaction block
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables