From: | Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> |
---|---|
To: | Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: autovacuum and reloptions |
Date: | 2009-02-07 05:10:24 |
Message-ID: | 3073cc9b0902062110l35159095od47a200c9fbb7194@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
<euler(at)timbira(dot)com> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera escreveu:
>>> (ii) I think we should change the expression "storage parameters" for
>>> something else because autovacuum is related to maintenance. My suggestion is
>>> a general expression like "relation parameters";
>>
>> I'm not sure I agree with this idea, because the term "storage
>> parameter" has been used for several releases already. This would be a
>> relatively major terminology change.
>>
> I don't buy your argument. 'fillfactor' is a _storage_ parameter but
> 'autovacuum_enabled' is not. I don't like terminology changes too but in this
> case it sounds strange calling autovacuum_* as storage parameters.
>
+1
--
Atentamente,
Jaime Casanova
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas
Guayaquil - Ecuador
Cel. +59387171157
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2009-02-07 09:08:04 | Wrong comment in ReadControlFile |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-02-07 03:21:57 | Re: new GUC var: autovacuum_process_all_tables |