| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Extent Locks |
| Date: | 2013-05-28 15:58:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20130528155849.GG8597@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Andres Freund (andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> On 2013-05-28 10:07:06 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I'm really not, at all, excited about adding in GUCs for this.
>
> But I thought you were in favor of doing complex stuff like mapping
> segments filled somewhere else into place :P
That wouldn't require a GUC.. ;)
> But I agree. This needs to work without much manual intervention. I
> think we just need to make autovacuum truncate only if it finds more
> free space than whatever amount we might have added at that relation
> size plus some slop.
Agreed.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-05-28 16:11:45 | Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0 |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-05-28 15:56:31 | Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0 |