| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Julien Rouhaud <julien(dot)rouhaud(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com, Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Publish autovacuum informations |
| Date: | 2016-03-05 00:32:04 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqRQrw7ms02x-eCknKfYcOLOX2JvHd7h=XRWg==9f3_z5w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Julien Rouhaud
<julien(dot)rouhaud(at)dalibo(dot)com> wrote:
> On 04/03/2016 23:34, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> New design discussions are a little bit late for 9.6 I am afraid :(
>> Perhaps we should consider this patch as returned with feedback for
>> the time being? The hook approach is not something I'd wish for if we
>> can improve in-core facility that would help user to decide better how
>> to tune autovacuum parameters.
>
> Yes, it's clearly not suited for the final commitfest. I just closed the
> patch as "returned with feedback".
>
> I'll work on the feedbacks I already had to document a wiki page, and
> wait for this commitfest to be more or less finished before starting a
> new thread on autovacuum instrumentation design.
OK, thanks.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-03-05 00:41:03 | Re: The plan for FDW-based sharding |
| Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2016-03-05 00:21:13 | Re: Publish autovacuum informations |