Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5F886323C7 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:57:19 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 15314-03 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:57:16 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from exprod7og101.obsmtp.com (exprod7og101.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.155]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 250C66323CA for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:57:15 -0400 (AST) Received: from source ([209.85.219.21]) by exprod7ob101.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSW9c2gIh6h38gh+x0O4Kym7I9aI9PY35@postini.com; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 07:57:15 PST Received: by ewy14 with SMTP id 14so2420602ewy.1 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 07:57:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.210.139.15 with SMTP id m15mr1793914ebd.118.1232035033073; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 07:57:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?88.195.102.92? (dsl-hkibrasgw2-ff66c300-92.dhcp.inet.fi [88.195.102.92]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i3sm226446nfh.40.2009.01.15.07.57.10 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 15 Jan 2009 07:57:11 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <496F5CD5.3010300@enterprisedb.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:57:09 +0200 From: Heikki Linnakangas Organization: EnterpriseDB User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20081018) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce Momjian CC: Gregory Stark , PostgreSQL-development , Tom Lane Subject: Re: Visibility map, partial vacuums References: <200901151548.n0FFmr204820@momjian.us> In-Reply-To: <200901151548.n0FFmr204820@momjian.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200901/1142 X-Sequence-Number: 131786 Bruce Momjian wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >>>> Also, is anything being done about the concern about 'vacuum storm' >>>> explained below? >>> I'm interested too. >> The additional "vacuum_freeze_table_age" (as I'm now calling it) setting >> I discussed in a later thread should alleviate that somewhat. When a >> table is autovacuumed, the whole table is scanned to freeze tuples if >> it's older than vacuum_freeze_table_age, and relfrozenxid is advanced. >> When different tables reach the autovacuum threshold at different times, >> they will also have their relfrozenxids set to different values. And in >> fact no anti-wraparound vacuum is needed. >> >> That doesn't help with read-only or insert-only tables, but that's not a >> new problem. > > OK, is this targeted for 8.4? Yes. It's been on my todo list for a long time, and I've also added it to the Open Items list so that we don't lose track of it. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com