Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hmmm ... if you're using VACUUM FREEZE, its behavior is unaffected > by this GUC anyway --- that option makes it use a freeze age of > zero. Yeah, I know, but feel like I'm being a bit naughty in using VACUUM FREEZE -- the documentation says: | Selects aggressive "freezing" of tuples. Specifying FREEZE is | equivalent to performing VACUUM with the vacuum_freeze_min_age | parameter set to zero. The FREEZE option is deprecated and will be | removed in a future release; set the parameter instead. So I figure that since it is deprecated, at some point I'll be setting the vacuum_freeze_min_age option rather than leaving it at the default and using VACUUM FREEZE in the nightly maintenance run. -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
