Re: Autovacuum in the backend

From: Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>
To: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)surnet(dot)cl>, Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Autovacuum in the backend
Date: 2005-06-16 05:14:17
Message-ID: 1118898857.78366.106.camel@home
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 00:44 -0400, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> > Just my own two cents. First I am not knocking the work that has been
> > on autovacuum. I am sure that it was a leap on its own to get it to
> > work. However I will say that I just don't see the reason for it.
>
> * Eliminates newbie confusion

Ignore everything else. This one is the clincher.

Someone doing serious database work is going to read the docs to find
out about backup / restore processes and basic tuning. They'll run
across the disable switch for autovacuum soon enough.

The jack of all trades IT guy who is running some minor work but doesn't
know much about databases in general won't have as many hurdles to
climb.

Besides, vacuum off by default possibly makes for huge files and takes
forever to reclaim space (cluster, vacuum full, etc.). Vacuum on by
default means worst case they turn it off and instantly their IO load
decreases.
--

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-06-16 05:32:16 Re: Autovacuum in the backend
Previous Message Greg Stark 2005-06-16 05:10:36 Re: [HACKERS] INHERITS and planning

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-06-16 05:32:16 Re: Autovacuum in the backend
Previous Message Greg Stark 2005-06-16 05:10:36 Re: [HACKERS] INHERITS and planning