On 3/2/10 12:47 PM, Marc Munro wrote: > To take it further still, if vacuum on the master could be prevented > from touching records that are less than max_standby_delay seconds old, > it would be safe to apply WAL from the very latest vacuum. I guess HOT > could be handled similarly though that may eliminate much of the > advantage of HOT updates.
Aside from the inability to convert between transcation count and time, isn't this what vacuum_defer_cleanup_age is supposed to do? Or does it not help with HOT updates? --Josh Berkus -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
