| From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Autovacuum vs statement_timeout |
| Date: | 2007-04-18 14:49:06 |
| Message-ID: | 200704181049.06775.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 21:25, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I think that is too strong an assumption, which is why I'm planning to
> back-patch the change to reset statement_timeout to 0 on autovacuum till
> 8.0, as discussed. I think I should also backpatch the change to set
> zero_damaged_pages as well (which is not on 8.0 AFAIR).
<blinks> Um, can I get a pointer to that thread? I can't imagine why we
would actually want to automatically destroy our data without oversight from
a DBA... I must be reading that wrong.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2007-04-18 14:51:48 | Re: Can't ri_KeysEqual() consider two nulls as equal? |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-04-18 14:25:07 | Re: schema creation during initdb |