On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm worried about the case of a very, very frequently updated table > getting put ahead of a table that needs a wraparound vacuum, but only > just. It doesn't sit well with me to think that the priority of that > goes from 0 (we don't even try to update it) to infinity (it goes > ahead of all tables needing to be vacuumed for dead tuples) the > instant we hit the vacuum_freeze_table_age.
What if it were the instant we hit autovacuum_freeze_max_age, not vacuum_freeze_table_age? Or does the current behavior already do this? Which process is responsible for enforcing autovacuum_freeze_max_age? Cheers, Jeff -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
