Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> >> On 8/7/2004 12:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> What? If there was consensus to do this, I missed it. If there was
> >>> even any *discussion* of doing this, I missed it.
> >> How many questions about vacuum still grabbing all available bandwidth,
> >> vacuum slowing down the whole system, vacuum being all evil do you want
> >> to answer for 8.0? Over and over again we are defending reasonable
> >> default configuration values against gazillions of little switches, and
> >> this is a reasonable default that will be a relief for large databases
> >> and makes more or less no difference for small ones.
> > What basis do you have for saying that this is a reasonable default?
> > Does anyone else agree?
> Just curious, but isn't this one of the key points about pg_autovacuum in
> the first place? So that you vacuum what needs to be vacuum'd, and not
> *everything* ... ? Shouldn't the answer to the 'bandwidth issue' change
> to 'you should install/use pg_autovacuum'?
We are talking about the vacuum delay feature, not pg_autovacuum.
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
In response to
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: Marc G. Fournier||Date: 2004-08-07 17:50:07|
|Subject: Re: pgsql-server: Vacuum delay activated by default.|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-08-07 17:40:49|
|Subject: pgsql-server: Don't try to rewrite NEW references in a utility statement |