On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Heikki Linnakangas >> <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> >> ?I think the maintenance >> >> overhead of an invisible variable is too much. >> > >> > A simple GUC or command-line switch isn't much code. >> >> I like the idea of a command-line switch. > > If you want to do that you should gereralize it as --binary-upgrade in > case we have other needs for it.
Yeah. Or we could do a binary_upgrade GUC which has the effect of forcibly suppressing autovacuum, and maybe other things later. I think that's a lot less hazardous than fiddling with the autovacuum GUC. -- 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
