Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Enhancement request

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Campbell, Lance" <lance(at)uiuc(dot)edu>, "posgres support" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Enhancement request
Date: 2007-11-30 21:48:24
Message-ID: 7341.1196459304@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin
"Jonah H. Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Nov 30, 2007 4:30 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> AFAICS we are moving as fast as we can in the direction of auto vacuum
>> and analyze.  Adding more frammishes to the manual commands seems like
>> gilding the buggy whip.

> Autovacuum will never be the be all end all.

No doubt, which is why no one has proposed removing the manual commands.
(Yet, anyway.)  But adding complication to them is not going to be an
easy sale.  We have limited manpower for development and we cannot
afford to get bogged down maintaining a codebase with enormous bloat
from useless legacy "features".

So: show me a use case for this that will still make sense in a
mostly-autovacuum world.  I can see a need for manual vacuuming of
individual special-case tables, but I don't see why schema-wide
vacuuming is so useful as to justify diverting development effort to it.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2007-11-30 22:00:05
Subject: Re: Enhancement request
Previous:From: Usama DarDate: 2007-11-30 21:42:13
Subject: Re: Enhancement request

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group