Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 8/7/2004 12:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > wieck(at)svr1(dot)postgresql(dot)org (Jan Wieck) writes:
> >> Vacuum delay activated by default.
> > What? If there was consensus to do this, I missed it. If there was
> > even any *discussion* of doing this, I missed it.
> > regards, tom lane
> 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.
I haven't seen tons of complaints about vacuum myself. In addition it
has already been pointed out that there is no one magic value that fixes
it for everyone so some tuning is going to be needed anyway.
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
In response to
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-08-07 19:53:48|
|Subject: pgsql-server: Update a couple of example error messages to reflect the |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-08-07 19:26:32|
|Subject: Re: pgsql-server: Vacuum delay activated by default. |