| From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Markus Schaber <schabios(at)logi-track(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: is pg_autovacuum so effective ? |
| Date: | 2005-02-28 18:38:18 |
| Message-ID: | 20050228183818.GC27212@wolff.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 16:46:34 +0100,
Markus Schaber <schabios(at)logi-track(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi, Matthew,
>
> Matthew T. O'Connor schrieb:
>
> > The version of pg_autovacuum that I submitted for 8.0 could be
> > instructed "per table" but it didn't make the cut. Aside from moved out
> > of contrib and integrated into the backend, per table autovacuum
> > settings is probably the next highest priority.
>
> What was the reason for non-acceptance?
It wasn't reviewed until very close to freeze due to people who could do
the review being busy and then there wasn't enough time to iron some things
out before the freeze.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stefan Hans | 2005-02-28 21:23:10 | wal_sync_methods |
| Previous Message | Markus Schaber | 2005-02-28 15:46:34 | Re: is pg_autovacuum so effective ? |