| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables |
| Date: | 2013-01-27 21:29:56 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMLevS41xk=xpF=-ZtcZTt0=uLwhe_W50-FtXFLaavm0jw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 27 January 2013 17:11, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 4:17 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 25 January 2013 17:19, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> We
>>> could easily run across a system where pg_class order happens to be
>>> better than anything else we come up with.
>>
>> I think you should read that back to yourself and see if you still
>> feel the word "easily" applies here.
>
> I absolutely do.
> You will not convince me that whacking around the
> behavior of autovacuum in a maintenance release is a remotely sane
> thing to do.
This is a different argument. It would be better to say this than to
come up with implausible problems as a way of rejecting something.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-01-27 22:27:21 | Re: vacuuming template0 |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2013-01-27 21:25:42 | Re: Visual Studio 2012 RC |