| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables |
| Date: | 2013-01-31 19:55:06 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZsRi5fO4ByCT3Z2-koUSveubj_awQSDVaa-ELs4wXixw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Instead, what I propose (and is not really in the patch), as a
> backpatchable item, is an approach in which the functions to compute
> each rel's Browne strength and sort are hooks. Normal behavior is not
> to sort at all, as currently, and sites that have a problem with the
> current random order can install a custom module that provide hooks to
> change ordering as they see fit. So behavior won't change for people
> who have no problem today.
Can you think of any examples of cases where we have back-patched a new hook?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-01-31 19:58:13 | Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-01-31 19:54:31 | Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables |