From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Press Release, Final Draft? |
Date: | 2004-09-23 19:32:37 |
Message-ID: | 1095967957.14485.167.camel@camel |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 14:20, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Robert,
>
> > Unless I am confused, the two features that we have are really Vacuum
> > and Vacuum Full. "Lazy Vacuum" is just a nickname that people use to
> > help differentiate it from full vacuums, but it is not a real feature
> > name, which is one of the reasons you wont find it mentioned in the docs
> > anywhere.
>
> Um, you prepare the Weekly News every week; how could you have missed this?
> Jan added adjustible delay settings for VACUUM which breaks it up into
> interruptable chunks, and interferes much less with concurrent I/O activity.
> This is a new feature -- I think you're just confused because Jan submitted
> it less than 2 months after 7.4 was released.
>
> However, Jan did have a second name for this if both you and Robert don't like
> Lazy Vacuum, which is Vacuum Delay.
>
:-)
I missed it because I have always refereed to *that* as "vacuum delay",
which is also how it is referenced in the docs. Yes, that stuff is
certainly new, but the thing that I conceptualize as "lazy vacuum" (the
lock friendly vacuum) is not... hence my confusion with your wording.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2004-09-24 03:08:23 | Re: Press Release, Final Draft? |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-09-23 18:20:45 | Re: Press Release, Final Draft? |