Re: PG16devel - vacuum_freeze_table_age seems not being taken into account

2023-03-03 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 2:43 AM Simon Elbaz wrote: > I expected it not to be processed by vacuum freeze. > However it has been entirely frozen. > Moreover, among the 51 rows, only 1 was eligible for freeze because its XID > was older than vacuum_freeze_min_age. The effect that you noticed is a co

Re: PG16devel - vacuum_freeze_table_age seems not being taken into account

2023-03-03 Thread Simon Elbaz
I ran vacuum without the freeze option as you can see below. Simon On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 12:01 PM David Rowley wrote: > On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 at 23:43, Simon Elbaz wrote: > > hydrodb=# SELECT c.oid::regclass as table_name, > >greatest(age(c.relfrozenxid),age(t.relfrozenxid)) as age > > F

Re: PG16devel - vacuum_freeze_table_age seems not being taken into account

2023-03-03 Thread David Rowley
On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 at 23:43, Simon Elbaz wrote: > hydrodb=# SELECT c.oid::regclass as table_name, >greatest(age(c.relfrozenxid),age(t.relfrozenxid)) as age > FROM pg_class c > LEFT JOIN pg_class t ON c.reltoastrelid = t.oid > WHERE c.relkind IN ('r', 'm') and c.relname='test'; > table_nam