Tom Lane wrote:
> It would be fairly easy, I think, to add some reloption fields that
> would let these parameters be controlled on a per-table level.
> Per-column would be much more painful; do we really need that?
Another +1 on the per-table setting. Or a config file setting to disable
this for the instance.
We have a 200GB DB that is mostly large text (>1MB) that is not searched
with substr. If we see a blowout in size of even 3x, we will not be able
to upgrade due to disk space limitations (at least without paying for a
lot of disks on mirror servers and hot-standy servers).
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2009-01-04 04:01:15|
|Subject: Re: generic reloptions improvement|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2009-01-04 03:34:37|
|Subject: Time to finalize patches for 8.4 beta|