Horton

Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@gmail.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2013-01-25T15:49:25Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 1/25/13 10:29 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> And I do want to get something back-patchable.

Autovacuum has existed for N years and nobody complained about this
until just now, so I don't see a strong justification for backpatching.

Or is this a regression from an earlier release?

In general, I think we should backpatch less.

Commits

  1. COPY FREEZE and mark committed on fresh tables.

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