| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim Nasby" <jim(dot)nasby(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Dave Page" <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, "PGSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Interface for pg_autovacuum |
| Date: | 2006-12-22 06:15:07 |
| Message-ID: | 20723.1166768107@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Jim Nasby" <jim(dot)nasby(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> The only other thought that comes to mind is that such syntax will
> make it a *lot* more verbose to set all the options for a table.
Which should surely make you wonder whether setting these options
per-table is the most important thing to do...
Arguing about syntax details is pretty premature, in my humble opinion.
We don't have agreement yet about what options we need or what scope
they should apply over.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2006-12-22 06:15:47 | Re: Load distributed checkpoint |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2006-12-22 05:16:56 | Re: Interface for pg_autovacuum |