Applied. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > > OK, I have attached a proposed patch to improve this. I moved the > > > pg_clog mention to a new paragraph and linked it to the reason the > > > default is relatively low. > > > > The references to "vacuum freeze" are incorrect; autovacuum does NOT > > do the equivalent of VACUUM FREEZE. Please stop playing around with > > the perfectly good existing wording. > > Uh, so VACUUM FREEZE unconditionally freezes all rows, while vacuum just > freezes rows who's xid is older than vacuum_freeze_min_age? I saw that > in our current docs in reference to VACUUM FREEZE: > > Selects aggressive "freezing" of tuples. Specifying FREEZE is > equivalent to performing VACUUM with the vacuum_freeze_min_age > parameter set to zero. The FREEZE option is deprecated and > will be removed in a future release; set the parameter instead. > > Updated patch attached. > > -- > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us > EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com > > + It's impossible for everything to be true. + > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
