Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? )
От | Josh Berkus |
---|---|
Тема | Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? ) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4A849CBB.2060201@agliodbs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? ) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? )
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff, Tom, >> Let's say that we had a range like 50-100M, where if it's older than >> 100M, we freeze it, and if it's older than 50M we freeze it only if it's >> on a dirty page. We would still have forensic evidence, but we could >> make a range such that we avoid writing multiple times. > > Yeah, making the limit "slushy" would doubtless save some writes, with > not a lot of downside. This would mean two settings: vacuum_freeze_min_age and vacuum_freeze_dirty_age. And we'd need to add those to the the autovacuum settings for each table as well. While we could just make one setting 1/2 of the other, that prevents me from saying: "freeze this table agressively if it's in memory, but wait a long time to vaccuum if it's on disk" I can completely imagine a table which has a vacuum_freeze_dirty_age of 10000 and a vacuum_freeze_min_age of 1m. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. www.pgexperts.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: