From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgsql-server: Vacuum delay activated by default. |
Date: | 2004-08-07 16:45:58 |
Message-ID: | 384.1091897158@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers |
Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> On 8/7/2004 12:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> What? If there was consensus to do this, I missed it. If there was
>> even any *discussion* of doing this, I missed it.
> How many questions about vacuum still grabbing all available bandwidth,
> vacuum slowing down the whole system, vacuum being all evil do you want
> to answer for 8.0? Over and over again we are defending reasonable
> default configuration values against gazillions of little switches, and
> this is a reasonable default that will be a relief for large databases
> and makes more or less no difference for small ones.
What basis do you have for saying that this is a reasonable default?
Does anyone else agree?
Again, it's the lack of discussion that is bothering me.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2004-08-07 17:27:02 | Re: pgsql-server: Vacuum delay activated by default. |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-08-07 13:16:52 | Re: pgsql-server: Vacuum delay activated by default. |