| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables |
| Date: | 2013-01-27 09:17:27 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMKPj744NdPx5nVs651esvJSh87rT7+76zrV_=vA6s8HBQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 25 January 2013 17:19, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> We
> could easily run across a system where pg_class order happens to be
> better than anything else we come up with.
I think you should read that back to yourself and see if you still
feel the word "easily" applies here.
I agree with Tom that its hard for almost any prioritisation not to be
better than we have now.
But also, we should keep it fairly simple to avoid introducing new
behaviour that defeats people with a highly tuned vacuum config.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2013-01-27 10:17:28 | Re: Back-branch update releases coming in a couple weeks |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-01-27 08:50:51 | Re: Enabling Checksums |