On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Jim Nasby <j...@nasby.net> wrote: > On 1/4/14, 8:19 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> Also, while multixactid_freeze_min_age should be low, perhaps a >> million as you suggest, multixactid_freeze_table_age should NOT be >> lowered to 3 million or anything like it. If you do that, people who >> are actually doing lots of row locking will start getting many more >> full-table scans. We want to avoid that at all cost. I'd probably >> make the default the same as for vacuum_freeze_table_age, so that >> mxids only cause extra full-table scans if they're being used more >> quickly than xids. > > Same default as vacuum_freeze_table_age, or default TO > vacuum_freeze_table_age? I'm thinking the latter makes more sense...
Same default. I think it's a mistake to keep leading people to think that the sensible values for one set of parameters are somehow related to a sensible set of values for the other set. They're really quite different things. -- 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
