From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: new GUC var: autovacuum_process_all_tables |
Date: | 2009-02-05 21:45:48 |
Message-ID: | 1233870348.4500.596.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 18:25 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> So you're not aware that we're doing away with pg_autovacuum for good?
> It's going to be replaced by reloptions, i.e.
> ALTER TABLE foo SET (autovacuum_enabled = false);
>
> Obviously there's no way to add a "catchall" setting.
Seems like a bad plan then. How do you reconcile those conflicting
requirements?
> > e.g.
> > "ALL TABLES", autovacuum_enabled=false
> >
> > I don't really want more GUCs for every nuance of AV behaviour.
>
> In any case I fail to see how is this much different from a new GUC var.
Rows in a table v. new parameters. We can allow endless table driven
complexity. Adding my_little_nuance=on|off strains most people's
patience.
How would I specify that database A wants AV turned off, but database B
wants it on?
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-02-05 21:49:01 | Re: autovacuum and reloptions |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-02-05 21:40:14 | Re: new GUC var: autovacuum_process_all_tables |