Re: pgsql-server: Vacuum delay activated by default.
От | Marc G. Fournier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgsql-server: Vacuum delay activated by default. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20040807142525.H1212@ganymede.hub.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgsql-server: Vacuum delay activated by default. (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgsql-server: Vacuum delay activated by default.
Re: pgsql-server: Vacuum delay activated by default. |
Список | pgsql-committers |
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.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? Just curious, but isn't this one of the key points about pg_autovacuum in the first place? So that you vacuum what needs to be vacuum'd, and not *everything* ... ? Shouldn't the answer to the 'bandwidth issue' change to 'you should install/use pg_autovacuum'? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
В списке pgsql-committers по дате отправления: