On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 14:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I tend to agree with Josh that you do need to offer two knobs. But > expressing the second knob as a fraction (with range 0 to 1) might be > better than an independent "min" parameter. As you say, that'd be > useful to prevent people from setting them inconsistently.
Ok. Any ideas for a name? Josh suggests "vacuum_freeze_dirty_age" (or perhaps he was using at as a placeholder). I don't particularly like that name, but I can't think of anything better without renaming vacuum_freeze_min_age. > > *: As an aside, these GUCs already have incredibly confusing names, and > > an extra variable would increase the confusion. For instance, they seem > > to use "min" and "max" interchangeably. > > Some of them are in fact max's, I believe. Looking at the definitions of vacuum_freeze_min_age and autovacuum_freeze_max_age there seems to be almost no distinction between "min" and "max" in those two names. I've complained about this before: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-12/msg01731.php I think both are essentially thresholds, so giving them two names with opposite meaning is misleading. Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
