Hi All,

Doing a further search on the FREEZE keyword, I found this post
http://www.nabble.com/Where-art-thou-pg_clog--td8993364.html where it
mention PostgreSQL 8.1.7 fixed the VACUUM FREEZE bug.

I just happens to have PostgreSQL 8.1.15 and 8.1.17 installed and I
checked in the pg_catalog.pg_autovacuum table, it seem that the 2 table
item - freeze_min_age and freeze_max_age is not found in both table.

If this is the case, I suggest that the Slony documentation guide be
revised to point this fact out and also to update the respective SQL
query command in the documentation.

Regards,
Lawrence Giam
........................................................................
..........................
Lawrence Giam | Global IT Creations Pte Ltd |  Network Administrator  
website: http://www.globalitcreations.com
phone: +65 6836 4768 ext 115| fax: + 65 6836 4736 | mobile: + 65 9758
7448 



-----Original Message-----
From: slony1-general-bounces at lists.slony.info
[mailto:slony1-general-bounces at lists.slony.info] On Behalf Of Andrew
Sullivan
Sent: Wednesday, 7 October 2009 11:36 PM
To: slony1-general at lists.slony.info
Subject: Re: [Slony1-general] Slony Maintenance guide


On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 11:12:27AM +0800, Lawrence Giam wrote:
> Hi All,
>  
> I was reading in the Slony 1.2.16 documentation on maintenance section

> 6.1 - Interaction with PostgreSQL autovacuum. In the documentation, 
> there is this query which was recommended to execute in order to 
> exclude some slony tables from being run by the Postgres autovacuum 
> features. I am running Postgres 8.1.7 on Debian Etch.

I completely forget how the autovacuum tables on 8.1.x work, but I think
you want to have a careful look at its documentation. Autovacuum in 8.1
was, IIRC, significantly different from later versions and ISTR that it
was the wrong choice for certain kinds of workloads.  The change you
need is _something_ like what you're suggesting, but I wouldn't
recommend it without a fairly clear understanding of the autovacuum
issues in 8.1.

(On another note, one of the problems with the Debian release model is
that it inevitably results in very old major Postgres releases.  I'd
counsel looking into a backport, because Postgres has advanced a lot
past 8.1, if you ask me.)

A



-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at crankycanuck.ca _______________________________________________
Slony1-general mailing list
Slony1-general at lists.slony.info
http://lists.slony.info/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general