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?
Advertising
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 http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
