From: | Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(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 21:54:08 |
Message-ID: | 498B6000.2040208@timbira.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera escreveu:
> Hi,
>
> Right now, when autovacuum is turned on we always assume it's supposed
> to process all tables except those that have autovacuum_enabled=false.
>
> Now, sometimes it might make more sense to keep it enabled but have it
> only check for certain tables, and leave the majority of them disabled.
> For this we'd have a separate GUC parameter, as in $SUBJECT (I'm not
> wedded to the name), and have the user set autovacuum_enabled=true via
> reloptions to enable it.
>
> Opinions?
>
What about 'autovacuum_mode'? Values could be 'all' and 'reloption'.
If we don't want to add another GUC, I'll go changing the 'autovacuum' GUC.
Values would be: 'on' means enable autovacuum and process all tables, 'off'
means disable autovacuum and 'reloption' (?) means only process those tables
that have reloption autovacuum_enabled=true. The con is that we couldn't
implement a per-{schema,database} switch for autovacuum. So I prefer the first
one.
--
Euler Taveira de Oliveira
http://www.timbira.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-02-05 21:54:56 | Re: new GUC var: autovacuum_process_all_tables |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-02-05 21:50:31 | Re: new GUC var: autovacuum_process_all_tables |