Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Lower *_freeze_max_age minimum values.

2015-10-05 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund writes: > On 2015-10-05 09:39:58 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> How about "Setting autovacuum_freeze_max_age to very small values >> is unwise since it will force frequent vacuuming." > Well, you still can't really set it to a very small value - the lower > limits are still 100k/10k for

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Lower *_freeze_max_age minimum values.

2015-10-05 Thread Andres Freund
On 2015-10-05 09:39:58 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > How about simply removing that sentence? I.e. something like > > autovacuum_freeze_max_age larger than the system-wide > > setting > > - (it can only be set smaller). Note that while you can set > > - autovacu

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Lower *_freeze_max_age minimum values.

2015-10-05 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund writes: > On 2015-09-24 12:39:54 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> I'm surprised the error has survived this long. Without checking I >> can't say what's the best solution either, but I would opt for >> documenting the limits we have -- if we want to change them back to 0 I >> say tha

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Lower *_freeze_max_age minimum values.

2015-10-05 Thread Andres Freund
On 2015-09-24 12:39:54 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2015-09-24 10:37:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Andres Freund writes: > > > > Should this patch not have also touched the per-table limits in > > > reloptions.c? > > > > Hm. I guess that'd make sense. It's not rea

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Lower *_freeze_max_age minimum values.

2015-09-24 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Cc'ing -hackers. Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-09-24 10:37:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andres Freund writes: > > Should this patch not have also touched the per-table limits in > > reloptions.c? > > Hm. I guess that'd make sense. It's not really related to the goal of > making it realistic t