Tom Lane wrote: > 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?
I'm on it. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
