>>I'm not proposing it for 8.1 though ...
>Well, why not? Arguably Mark's problem is a bug, and it's not too late
>to address bugs.
FWIW, I'd be satisfied with a warning in the autovacuum docs about this
>I'm not sure about the idea of not vacuuming the toast table when we
>decide to vacuum the main table.
If you promote toast tables to autovacuum candidates that can be
vacuumed independently, I think autovacuum doesn't need to do both when
it does the main table. This would potentially improve performance by
minimizing the amount of work that needs to be done when a vacuum is
necessary. OTOH, you can't stop regular vacuum from including the toast
table otherwise way more people would start bugging you :)
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Matthew T. O'Connor||Date: 2005-07-08 17:21:21|
|Subject: Re: pg_autovacuum: short, wide tables|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-07-08 17:11:35|
|Subject: Re: pg_autovacuum: short, wide tables |