On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of jue ene 13 00:05:53 -0300 2011: >> > Srini Raghavan wrote: >> > > Thank you very much for reviewing, appreciate the feedback.? As pointed >> > > out by >> > > you, it is always best to test it out with the latest version, so, I >> > > tested the >> > > same approach with postgres 9.0.2 on windows just now, and it works! >> > > >> > > >> > > I forgot to mention earlier that in addition to setting >> > > vacuum_freeze_table_age >> > > to 0, vacuum_freeze_min_age must also be set to 0 to reset xmin with the >> > > FrozenXid. >> > >> > I wonder if you should be using VACUUM FREEZE instead of having to set >> > variables. >> >> The documentation says you shouldn't: >> >> 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. >> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/sql-vacuum.html > > I didn't know that. I added the -z(freeze) option to vacuumdb in 8.4 > for use by pg_upgrade. > > I think the original idea was that people should never need to freeze > anything, but it turns out pg_upgrade and this user need it so maybe > depricating is not a good idea. I guess pg_upgrade could call vacuumdb > with a PGOPTIONS flag to force a vacuum_freeze_min_age value.
I'd rather remove the deprecating warning. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
