| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Return of the Solaris vacuum polling problem -- anyone remember this? |
| Date: | 2010-08-23 16:40:32 |
| Message-ID: | 22915.1282581632@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of dom ago 22 12:51:47 -0400 2010:
>> Do you have a suggestion? Reorder the items?
> I'd add another para before that one saying that this value "also"
> affects pg_clog truncation. I agree that putting pg_clog truncation as
> the first item here is not an improvement. For most people, having
> those pg_clog files there or not is going to be a wash, compared to data
> size.
I was going to suggest that the point about pg_clog should be in a
separate paragraph *after* this one, since it seems like a secondary
issue. But anyway, I agree with putting this para back as it was and
talking about clog in a separate para.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-08-23 16:47:28 | Re: Return of the Solaris vacuum polling problem -- anyone remember this? |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-08-23 16:14:52 | Re: Return of the Solaris vacuum polling problem -- anyone remember this? |