Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> On 8/7/2004 12:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> What? If there was consensus to do this, I missed it. If there was
>> even any *discussion* of doing this, I missed it.
> How many questions about vacuum still grabbing all available bandwidth,
> vacuum slowing down the whole system, vacuum being all evil do you want
> to answer for 8.0? Over and over again we are defending reasonable
> default configuration values against gazillions of little switches, and
> this is a reasonable default that will be a relief for large databases
> and makes more or less no difference for small ones.
What basis do you have for saying that this is a reasonable default?
Does anyone else agree?
Again, it's the lack of discussion that is bothering me.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: Marc G. Fournier||Date: 2004-08-07 17:27:02|
|Subject: Re: pgsql-server: Vacuum delay activated by default. |
|Previous:||From: Jan Wieck||Date: 2004-08-07 13:16:52|
|Subject: Re: pgsql-server: Vacuum delay activated by default.|