Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1b9vJY-0002nF-57 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 06 Jun 2016 14:15:36 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1b9vJX-0002nY-O6 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 06 Jun 2016 14:15:35 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1b9vJV-0002lw-TP for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 06 Jun 2016 14:15:34 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1b9vJT-00027R-Kv for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 06 Jun 2016 14:15:32 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u56EFSEg006255; Mon, 6 Jun 2016 10:15:28 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Robert Haas cc: Masahiko Sawada , Andres Freund , "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: Reviewing freeze map code In-reply-to: References: <20160502214818.psk3lmgyihk6gr3k@alap3.anarazel.de> <20160505000840.epatoq6d2e556446@alap3.anarazel.de> <5402.1465221188@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas message dated "Mon, 06 Jun 2016 10:06:09 -0400" Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2016 10:15:28 -0400 Message-ID: <6254.1465222528@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Robert Haas writes: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Taking out GUCs is not >> easier than taking out statement parameters; you risk breaking >> applications either way. > Agreed, but that doesn't really answer the question of which one we > should have, if either. My gut feeling on this is to either do > nothing or add a VACUUM option (not a GUC, not a reloption) called > even_frozen_pages, default false. What is your opinion? That's about where I stand, with some preference for "do nothing". I'm not convinced we need this. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers