Re: 7.4 Features

From: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 7.4 Features
Date: 2003-10-08 18:14:01
Message-ID: 1065636841.1821.592.camel@camel
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy

On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 12:56, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 09:39, Robert Treat wrote:
> > Yes, you can :-) pg_autovacuum and better index space management should
> > be big improvements from a maintenance standpoint.
>
> Are you sure that pg_autovacuum is sufficiently refined to be worth
> boasting about?
>
> (By which I mean, "I don't think pg_autovacuum is sufficiently refined
> to be worth boasting about" -- my understanding that it was agreed that
> a client-side implementation was just meant as a prototype.)
>

Well, that would bring up the whole question of how much "boasting" we
should ever do about contrib modules... I don't see anything in it's
documentation that would suggest I shouldn't run it as long as the known
issues don't cause me any heart ache. I do think it's refined enough to
suggest folks try it out for their production apps, I can see a lot of
folks that need to distribute a self maintaining database using it as is
and being quite happy. I would think that if it ever becomes integrated
into the main code, it wont be as a client side program, but unless
someone wants to put some disclaimers into CVS, I'll trust that it will
work for 7.4.

Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

In response to

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2003-10-08 18:46:44 Re: Presentation
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2003-10-08 17:49:43 Re: Fwd: Re: [PERFORM] Presentation