Re: Per-table log_autovacuum_min_duration is actually documented

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Per-table log_autovacuum_min_duration is actually documented
Date: 2015-11-12 00:06:22
Message-ID: 29694.1447286782@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> I think you're remembering this:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20150402205713.GB22175@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org

> Right. Thanks. Do you think we'd still want a patch to improve that?

Give it a try if you like, and see whether it seems to improve matters.
I did not try moving material around like that in the patch I committed
earlier today.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David G. Johnston 2015-11-12 00:35:55 Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2015-11-12 00:04:18 Re: pageinspect patch, for showing tuple data