Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> 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.

Fair enough.  Who will fix the already-applied patch?

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

               http://archives.postgresql.org

Reply via email to