On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> >> ?I think the maintenance
>> >> overhead of an invisible variable is too much.
>> > A simple GUC or command-line switch isn't much code.
>> I like the idea of a command-line switch.
> If you want to do that you should gereralize it as --binary-upgrade in
> case we have other needs for it.
Yeah. Or we could do a binary_upgrade GUC which has the effect of
forcibly suppressing autovacuum, and maybe other things later. I
think that's a lot less hazardous than fiddling with the autovacuum
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2011-03-31 16:17:49|
|Subject: Bug in autovacuum.c?|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-03-31 16:13:27|
|Subject: Re: found a very confusing and maybe outdated sentence|