From: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] More detail on settings for pgavd? |
Date: | 2003-11-25 04:08:08 |
Message-ID: | m3znelhyzb.fsf@wolfe.cbbrowne.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
After a long battle with technology, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com (Josh Berkus), an earthling, wrote:
>> As long as pg_autovacuum remains a contrib module, I don't think
>> any changes to the system catelogs will be make. If pg_autovacuum
>> is deemed ready to move out of contrib, then we can talk about the
>> above.
>
> But we could create a config file that would store stuff in a
> flatfile table, OR we could add our own "system table" that would be
> created when one "initializes" pg_avd.
The problem with introducing a "config file" is that you then have to
introduce a language and a parser for that language.
That introduces rather a lot of complexity. That was the BIG problem
with pgavd (which is a discarded project; pg_autovacuum is NOT the
same thing as pgavd). There was more code involved just in managing
the pgavd parser than there is in all of pg_autovacuum.
I think the right answer for more sophisticated configuration would
involve specifying a database in which to find the pg_autovacuum
table(s).
> Just an idea. Mind you, I'm not so sure that we want to focus
> immediately on per-table settings. I think that we want to get the
> "automatic" settings working fairly well first; a lot of new DBAs
> would use the per-table settings to shoot themselves in the foot.
> So we need to be able to make a strong recommendation to "try the
> automatic settings first."
Yeah, it's probably a good idea to ensure that per-table settings
involves some really conspicuous form of "foot gun" (with no kevlar
socks) to discourage its use except when you _know_ what you're
doing...
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="ntlug.org" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/nonrdbms.html
Q: Can SETQ only be used with numerics?
A: No, SETQ may also be used by Symbolics, and use it they do.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-11-25 04:33:24 | Re: [7.4] statistics collector: Protocol not supported |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-11-25 02:10:49 | Re: Build farm |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2003-11-25 06:06:50 | Re: Maximum Possible Insert Performance? |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-11-25 03:18:48 | Re: Where to start for performance problem? |