Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> ... I have resisted having VACUUM freeze
> >> tuples before they've reached a quite-respectable age, and I object to
> >> having CLUSTER do it either.
> > How about freezing anything older than vacuum_freeze_min_age, just like 
> > VACUUM does?
> I suppose that'd be OK, but is it likely to be worth the trouble?

I think so, because it means that people using CLUSTER to keep the size
of tables in line instead of VACUUM, would not need the otherwise
mandatory VACUUM.

Alvaro Herrera                      
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to