On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Josh Berkus<josh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I don't think that's the name of the parameter, since a Google search >> gives zero hits. There are so many fiddly parameters for this thing >> that I don't want to speculate about which one you meant. > > Sorry, subject line had it correct. > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/runtime-config-client.html#GUC-VACUUM-FREEZE-MIN-AGE Ah. Yeah, I agree with Tom: how would it help to make this smaller? It seems like that could possibly increase I/O, if the old data is changing at all, but even if it doesn't it I don't see that it saves you anything to freeze it sooner. Generally freezing is unnecessary pain: if we had 128-bit transaction IDs, I'm guessing that we wouldn't care about freezing or wraparound at all. (Of course that would create other problems, which is why we don't, but the point is freezing is at best a necessary evil.) ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
