From: Florian G. Pflug <fgp@phlo.org>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql-patches@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Aggressive freezing in lazy-vacuum
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:41:40 +0100
Message-ID: <45EC7274.20502@phlo.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <45EC6FB8.8090603@enterprisedb.com>
References: <20070227141958.638D.ITAGAKI.TAKAHIRO@oss.ntt.co.jp>
<20070227170613.GK29041@nasby.net>
<20070305182401.C4BC.ITAGAKI.TAKAHIRO@oss.ntt.co.jp>
<18982.1173110551@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<45EC6F02.1050306@phlo.org>
<45EC6FB8.8090603@enterprisedb.com>
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Florian G. Pflug wrote:
>> There could be a GUC vacuum_freeze_limit, and the actual FreezeLimit
>> would be calculated as
>> GetOldestXmin() - vacuum_freeze_limit
>
> We already have that. It's called vacuum_freeze_min_age, and the default
> is 100 million transactions.
>
> IIRC we added it late in the 8.2 release cycle when we changed the clog
> truncation point to depend on freeze limit.
Ok, that explains why I didn't find it when I checked the source - I
checked the 8.1 sources by accident ;-)
Anyway, thanks for pointing that out ;-)
greetings, Florian Pflug
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: fgp@phlo.org, heikki@enterprisedb.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-patches@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Aggressive freezing in lazy-vacuum
In-Reply-To: <45EC7274.20502@phlo.org>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
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