Re: Return of the Solaris vacuum polling problem -- anyone remember this?

Applied.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > > OK, I have attached a proposed patch to improve this.  I moved the
> > > pg_clog mention to a new paragraph and linked it to the reason the
> > > default is relatively low.
> > 
> > The references to "vacuum freeze" are incorrect; autovacuum does NOT
> > do the equivalent of VACUUM FREEZE.  Please stop playing around with
> > the perfectly good existing wording.
> 
> Uh, so VACUUM FREEZE unconditionally freezes all rows, while vacuum just
> freezes rows who's xid is older than vacuum_freeze_min_age?  I saw that
> in our current docs in reference to VACUUM FREEZE:
> 
>     Selects aggressive "freezing" of tuples. Specifying FREEZE is
>     equivalent to performing VACUUM with the vacuum_freeze_min_age
>     parameter set to zero. The FREEZE option is deprecated and
>     will be removed in a future release; set the parameter instead.
> 
> Updated patch attached.
> 
> -- 
>   Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
>   EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com
> 
>   + It's impossible for everything to be true. +


> 
> -- 
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +