Re: autovacuum and reloptions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: autovacuum and reloptions
Date: 2008-10-14 16:32:15
Message-ID: 7780.1224001935@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> God, no. GUC is hopelessly complex already, we should *not* try to make
>> it track different values of a parameter for different tables.

> Are there any more specific reasons than "it's very complex"?

That one seems quite sufficient to me; but consider dump/restore if you
need more.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2008-10-14 16:46:57 Re: Transactions and temp tables
Previous Message Emmanuel Cecchet 2008-10-14 16:27:15 Re: Transactions and temp tables