On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 13:49 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Thinking about this some more, I'm not too happy with those names
> either. vacuum_freeze_scan_age and autovacuum_freeze_scan_age don't mean
> quite the same thing, like vacuum_cost_delay and
> autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay do, for example.
If the distinction you're making is that autovacuum_freeze_max_age
affects the launching of a vacuum rather than the behavior of a vacuum,
maybe we could incorporate the word "launch" like:
autovacuum_launch_freeze_threshold
> I'm now leaning towards:
>
> autovacuum_freeze_max_age
> vacuum_freeze_table_age
> vacuum_freeze_min_age
>
> where autovacuum_freeze_max_age and vacuum_freeze_min_age are unchanged,
> and vacuum_freeze_table_age is the new setting that controls when VACUUM
> or autovacuum should perform a full scan of the table to advance
> relfrozenxid.
I'm still bothered by the fact that "max" and "min" really mean the same
thing here.
I don't think we can perfectly capture the meaning of these GUCs in the
name. I think our goal should be to avoid confusion between them.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
