On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
>> On 8/7/2004 12:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> What? If there was consensus to do this, I missed it. If there was
>>> even any *discussion* of doing this, I missed it.
>> How many questions about vacuum still grabbing all available bandwidth,
>> vacuum slowing down the whole system, vacuum being all evil do you want
>> to answer for 8.0? Over and over again we are defending reasonable
>> default configuration values against gazillions of little switches, and
>> this is a reasonable default that will be a relief for large databases
>> and makes more or less no difference for small ones.
> What basis do you have for saying that this is a reasonable default?
> Does anyone else agree?
Just curious, but isn't this one of the key points about pg_autovacuum in
the first place? So that you vacuum what needs to be vacuum'd, and not
*everything* ... ? Shouldn't the answer to the 'bandwidth issue' change
to 'you should install/use pg_autovacuum'?
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
In response to
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-08-07 17:40:49|
|Subject: pgsql-server: Don't try to rewrite NEW references in a utility statement |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-08-07 16:45:58|
|Subject: Re: pgsql-server: Vacuum delay activated by default. |