Andres Freund wrote: > If youre careful you can also notice that there is an interesting typo > in the freeze table computation. Namely it uses freeze_min_age instead > of freeze_table_age. Which probably explains why I had so bad > performance results with lowering vacuum_freeze_min_age, it basically > radically increases the amount of full-table-scans, far more than it > should. > > I can't imagine that anybody with a large database ran pg successfully > with a small freeze_min_age due to this. > > It seems to be broken since the initial introduction of freeze_table_age > in 6587818542e79012276dcfedb2f97e3522ee5e9b. I guess it wasn't noticed > because the behaviour is only visible via autovacuum because a > user-issued VACUUM passes -1 as freeze_min_age.
Backpatched all the way back to 8.4 -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
