Horton

Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2013-02-04T22:16:02Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 5:25 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> If the release notes are not already baked in, I would suggest this wording:

> +      The main consequence of this mistake is that it
> +      caused full-table vacuuming scans to occur much more frequently
> +      than intended.

It's baked ... sorry about that, but when making the notes there's
seldom time to go through the threads about every patch to see if the
commit messages are accurate or not.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. COPY FREEZE and mark committed on fresh tables.

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