Horton

Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables

Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2013-01-30T18:26:06Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 2013-01-30 10:21:07 -0800, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > 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.

The archive has it, so I for once haven't forgotten sending it:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20130130145521.GB3355@awork2.anarazel.de 

While its a clear bug and fixing it in HEAD is a sure thing an argument
could be made that its a clear behavioural change in the back
branches. I don't think it holds too much water, but wanted to mention
it.

Andres

-- 
 Andres Freund	                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Commits

  1. COPY FREEZE and mark committed on fresh tables.

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