From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: new GUC var: autovacuum_process_all_tables |
Date: | 2009-02-06 01:27:07 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070902051727x455f3723y1ea3966c500f481e@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Thinking about this a little more, the biggest problem I have with
> this feature is that it makes autovacuum_enabled mean two different
> things depending on context. But maybe we should change the name of
> the reloption to "autovacuum" and have three values for it:
> default|enabled|disabled.
>
> Then we could add a GUC called autovacuum_by_default = on|off, and we
> could later insert per-schema or per-database or per-table-group
> defaults without introducing any backwards-incompatibility (default
> would still mean default, though the default might come from a
> different source).
In fact (he said to himself), we could take this a step further and
call both the reloption and GUC "autovacuum_policy". Then we could
have two policies for this release ("always" and "never") plus allow
"default" for the reloption. Then future releases could allow users
to define additional policies, like "off-hours".
Just thinking out loud here folks...
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Euler Taveira de Oliveira | 2009-02-06 02:25:47 | Re: autovacuum and reloptions |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-02-06 01:19:40 | Re: new GUC var: autovacuum_process_all_tables |