Re: truncating pg_multixact/members

On 1/4/14, 8:19 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Also, while multixactid_freeze_min_age should be low, perhaps a
> million as you suggest, multixactid_freeze_table_age should NOT be
> lowered to 3 million or anything like it.  If you do that, people who
> are actually doing lots of row locking will start getting many more
> full-table scans.  We want to avoid that at all cost.  I'd probably
> make the default the same as for vacuum_freeze_table_age, so that
> mxids only cause extra full-table scans if they're being used more
> quickly than xids.

Same default as vacuum_freeze_table_age, or default TO vacuum_freeze_table_age? I'm thinking the latter makes more
sense...
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect                       jim@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell)                         http://jim.nasby.net