| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WAL insert delay settings |
| Date: | 2019-02-19 18:46:45 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ+uT89iOE7GN5seBm5pW8kb2gE9VcgbGd1rTJazZaiKw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 1:35 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> I still don't *AT ALL* buy Stephen and Tomas' argument that it'd be
> confusing that when both VACUUM and WAL cost limiting are active, the
> lower limit takes effect.
I think you guys may all be in vigorous -- not to say mortal -- agreement.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-02-19 18:50:46 | Re: WAL insert delay settings |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2019-02-19 18:45:28 | Re: Some thoughts on NFS |