Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: is pg_autovacuum so effective ?

From: Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>
To: Markus Schaber <schabios(at)logi-track(dot)com>
Cc: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>,pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: is pg_autovacuum so effective ?
Date: 2005-02-28 18:38:18
Message-ID: 20050228183818.GC27212@wolff.to (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 16:46:34 +0100,
  Markus Schaber <schabios(at)logi-track(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi, Matthew,
> 
> Matthew T. O'Connor schrieb:
> 
> > The version of pg_autovacuum that I submitted for 8.0 could be
> > instructed "per table" but it didn't make the cut.  Aside from moved out
> > of contrib and integrated into the backend, per table autovacuum
> > settings is probably the next highest priority.
> 
> What was the reason for non-acceptance?

It wasn't reviewed until very close to freeze due to people who could do
the review being busy and then there wasn't enough time to iron some things
out before the freeze.

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Stefan HansDate: 2005-02-28 21:23:10
Subject: wal_sync_methods
Previous:From: Markus SchaberDate: 2005-02-28 15:46:34
Subject: Re: is pg_autovacuum so effective ?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group