From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables |
Date: | 2013-01-31 19:58:13 |
Message-ID: | 18884.1359662293@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Instead, what I propose (and is not really in the patch), as a
> backpatchable item, is an approach in which the functions to compute
> each rel's Browne strength and sort are hooks. Normal behavior is not
> to sort at all, as currently, and sites that have a problem with the
> current random order can install a custom module that provide hooks to
> change ordering as they see fit. So behavior won't change for people
> who have no problem today.
Meh. I'm not really thrilled with adding hooks (that presumably we'd
have to preserve forever) to solve a short-term problem. Nor does this
sound hugely convenient for users with the problem, anyway. Do we even
know for sure that anyone would create such modules?
I think we should just fix it as best we can in HEAD, and then anyone
who thinks the risk/reward ratio is favorable can back-patch that fix
into a private build.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-01-31 20:07:07 | Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-01-31 19:55:06 | Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables |