On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 00:01 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > IMO it's a usability bug which will be gone when we move to > pg_class.reloptions -- you won't need to set random values for options > you don't know what to set to.
But this is a problem in *this* release (and the last also?). > As for documentation, this is mentioned somewhere. Perhaps not clearly > enough? OTOH I think the real problem is that people think > documentation can be skipped, thus they don't know the "fine print" -- > so it won't matter how non-fine we make it. Not clear enough. I don't think Tom's suggested wording goes far enough because not everybody understands this sufficiently to make the leap that low settings will put you into a cycle of constant vacuuming. We clamp autovacuum_freeze_max_age and autovacuum_freeze_min_age to certain values, so I think we should do the same for values in the pg_autovacuum table. i.e. force freeze_min_age and freeze_max_age to the same min/max values as their GUC equivalents. Or at very least issue a WARNING to the logs if a too-low value is present. The docs should say "If you set autovacuum_freeze_age to 0 or a low positive number this will cause the table to be constantly VACUUM FREEZEd, which you might want, but you very probably don't". -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
