Andres Freund writes:
> On 2015-10-05 09:39:58 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> How about "Setting autovacuum_freeze_max_age to very small values
>> is unwise since it will force frequent vacuuming."
> Well, you still can't really set it to a very small value - the lower
> limits are still 100k/10k for
On 2015-10-05 09:39:58 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > How about simply removing that sentence? I.e. something like
> > autovacuum_freeze_max_age larger than the system-wide
> > setting
> > - (it can only be set smaller). Note that while you can set
> > - autovacu
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2015-09-24 12:39:54 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I'm surprised the error has survived this long. Without checking I
>> can't say what's the best solution either, but I would opt for
>> documenting the limits we have -- if we want to change them back to 0 I
>> say tha
On 2015-09-24 12:39:54 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2015-09-24 10:37:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Andres Freund writes:
>
> > > Should this patch not have also touched the per-table limits in
> > > reloptions.c?
> >
> > Hm. I guess that'd make sense. It's not rea
Cc'ing -hackers.
Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-09-24 10:37:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund writes:
> > Should this patch not have also touched the per-table limits in
> > reloptions.c?
>
> Hm. I guess that'd make sense. It's not really related to the goal of
> making it realistic t
