pg.ddx.io pgsql-docs@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedvacuum_freeze_min_age description validity
2+ messages / 2 participants
[nested] [flat]
* vacuum_freeze_min_age description validity
@ 2021-09-17 08:54 PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>
2021-09-17 22:08 ` Re: vacuum_freeze_min_age description validity Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: PG Doc comments form @ 2021-09-17 08:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org; +Cc: sanjaya.waruna@gmail.com
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/routine-vacuuming.html
Description:
Hi All,
I have a doubt about the vacuum_freeze_min_age explanation here;
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/routine-vacuuming.html
"vacuum_freeze_min_age controls how old an XID value has to be before rows
bearing that XID will be frozen. Increasing this setting may avoid
unnecessary work if the rows that would otherwise be frozen will soon be
modified again, but decreasing this setting increases the number of
transactions that can elapse before the table must be vacuumed again."
Shouldn't the "Increasing" and "decreasing" words there interchange the
places?
Isn't decreasing value for vacuum_freeze_min_age causes vacuum to freeze
tuples soon due to reduced age? So it reduces number of transactions that
can elapse before the table must be vacuumed.
Please let me know if my understanding is incorrect.
Cheers,
Sanjaya.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: vacuum_freeze_min_age description validity
2021-09-17 08:54 vacuum_freeze_min_age description validity PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>
@ 2021-09-17 22:08 ` Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Laurenz Albe @ 2021-09-17 22:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: sanjaya.waruna@gmail.com; pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
On Fri, 2021-09-17 at 08:54 +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/routine-vacuuming.html
> Description:
>
> Hi All,
> I have a doubt about the vacuum_freeze_min_age explanation here;
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/routine-vacuuming.html
> "vacuum_freeze_min_age controls how old an XID value has to be before rows
> bearing that XID will be frozen. Increasing this setting may avoid
> unnecessary work if the rows that would otherwise be frozen will soon be
> modified again, but decreasing this setting increases the number of
> transactions that can elapse before the table must be vacuumed again."
>
> Shouldn't the "Increasing" and "decreasing" words there interchange the
> places?
> Isn't decreasing value for vacuum_freeze_min_age causes vacuum to freeze
> tuples soon due to reduced age? So it reduces number of transactions that
> can elapse before the table must be vacuumed.
> Please let me know if my understanding is incorrect.
The documentation is correct.
If you increase the parameter, rows will be frozen later, so if the rows get
deleted before they would get frozen, you save the work of freezing them.
If you decrease the parameter, rows get frozen earlier, so the time until
anti-wraparound vacuum is necessary will increase.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-09-17 22:08 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-09-17 08:54 vacuum_freeze_min_age description validity PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>
2021-09-17 22:08 ` Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox