Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Interface for pg_autovacuum

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jim Nasby" <jim(dot)nasby(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Dave Page" <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, "PGSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Interface for pg_autovacuum
Date: 2006-12-22 06:15:07
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Jim Nasby" <jim(dot)nasby(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> The only other thought that comes to mind is that such syntax will  
> make it a *lot* more verbose to set all the options for a table.

Which should surely make you wonder whether setting these options
per-table is the most important thing to do...

Arguing about syntax details is pretty premature, in my humble opinion.
We don't have agreement yet about what options we need or what scope
they should apply over.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Greg SmithDate: 2006-12-22 06:15:47
Subject: Re: Load distributed checkpoint
Previous:From: Jim NasbyDate: 2006-12-22 05:16:56
Subject: Re: Interface for pg_autovacuum

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group