Re: RFC: changing autovacuum_naptime semantics

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: RFC: changing autovacuum_naptime semantics
Date: 2007-03-07 23:18:44
Message-ID: 23792.1173309524@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:
> Is everybody OK with changing the autovacuum_naptime semantics?

it seems already different from 8.2, so no objection to further change.

> Is everybody OK with not putting a per-tablespace worker limit?
> Is everybody OK with putting per-database worker limits on a pg_database
> column?

I don't think we need a new pg_database column. If it's a GUC you can
do ALTER DATABASE SET, no? Or was that what you meant?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2007-03-08 00:40:16 Re: [HACKERS] WITH/RECURSIVE plans
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-03-07 23:01:02 Proposed ProcessUtility() API additions