From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Return of the Solaris vacuum polling problem -- anyone remember this? |
Date: | 2010-08-23 16:47:28 |
Message-ID: | 1282581999-sup-8560@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun ago 23 12:40:32 -0400 2010:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of dom ago 22 12:51:47 -0400 2010:
> >> Do you have a suggestion? Reorder the items?
>
> > I'd add another para before that one saying that this value "also"
> > affects pg_clog truncation. I agree that putting pg_clog truncation as
> > the first item here is not an improvement. For most people, having
> > those pg_clog files there or not is going to be a wash, compared to data
> > size.
>
> I was going to suggest that the point about pg_clog should be in a
> separate paragraph *after* this one, since it seems like a secondary
> issue. But anyway, I agree with putting this para back as it was and
> talking about clog in a separate para.
Sorry, yes, I was also thinking "after". I don't know what made me
write "before" but it wasn't clarity of thought.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2010-08-23 16:56:00 | Re: WIP: extensible enums |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-23 16:40:32 | Re: Return of the Solaris vacuum polling problem -- anyone remember this? |