On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I agree with you, but if we want it *this* release, on top of all the > other features we have queued, then I suggest we compromise. If you hold > out for more feature, you may get less. > > Statement timeout = 2 * (100ms + autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay) * > tablesize/(autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit / vacuum_cost_page_dirty)
I'm inclined to think that would be a very dangerous compromise. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
