Horton

Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables

Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2013-01-30T18:21:07Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

> I can't imagine that anybody with a large database ran pg
> successfully with a small freeze_min_age due to this.

I can't speak to this from personal experience, because at
Wisconsin Courts we found ourselves best served by running a
database VACUUM FREEZE ANALYZE each night during off-peak hours.

> It seems to be broken since the initial introduction of
> freeze_table_age in 6587818542e79012276dcfedb2f97e3522ee5e9b.

> Trivial patch attached.

I didn't see a patch attached.

-Kevin

Commits

  1. COPY FREEZE and mark committed on fresh tables.

  2. Add vacuum_freeze_table_age GUC option, to control when VACUUM should