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                      
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Reply via email to