| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Non-transactional pg_class, try 2 |
| Date: | 2006-06-29 08:39:27 |
| Message-ID: | 1151570367.2691.1964.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 20:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> In fact, maybe we should just force an autovac cycle for any DB that
> appears to be approaching wraparound, rather than waiting for the
> shutdown-before-wraparound code to kick in. Getting into that state
> amounts to whacking DBAs upside the head for being stupid, which
> doesn't really win us any friends ...
Yes, please can we have the auto autovacuum cut in rather than the
wraparound message? I'd rather have them complain that we did this, than
complain that we didn't.
Normally, I wouldn't support automatically starting admin tasks without
thr sysadmins knowledge.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD | 2006-06-29 08:44:49 | Re: Single Index Tuple Chain (SITC) method |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2006-06-29 07:30:30 | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-06-29 20:37:36 | Re: [HACKERS] Non-transactional pg_class, try 2 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-29 00:08:21 | Re: [HACKERS] Non-transactional pg_class, try 2 |