Re: New GUC autovacuum_max_threshold ?
| От | wenhui qiu |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: New GUC autovacuum_max_threshold ? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAGjGUAKQQu2Pvys-zSo12tYXhim8uhAT6Vr8xi0enf9B-jMrrw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: New GUC autovacuum_max_threshold ? (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
HI Nathan Frédéric Yhuel
> consensus on which approach to take, unfortunately.
>
> For what it's worth, although I would have preferred the sub-linear
> growth thing, I'd much rather have this than nothing.
Agree , Better late than never. But I personally think a GUC parameter can also be added, allowing users to choose the algorithm that works better, especially since SQL Server is a pioneer in this area."
On 1/7/25 23:57, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Here is a rebased patch for cfbot. AFAICT we are still pretty far from> consensus on which approach to take, unfortunately.
>
> For what it's worth, although I would have preferred the sub-linear
> growth thing, I'd much rather have this than nothing.
Agree , Better late than never. But I personally think a GUC parameter can also be added, allowing users to choose the algorithm that works better, especially since SQL Server is a pioneer in this area."
On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 2:20 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 09:32:58PM +0000, Vinícius Abrahão wrote:
> Please also provide the tests on the new parameter you want to introduce.
I skimmed around and didn't see any existing tests for these kinds of
parameters, which of course isn't a great reason not to add tests, but it's
also not clear what such tests might look like. Do you have any ideas?
--
nathan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: