On 15 April 2015 at 09:10, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2015-04-15 08:42:33 -0400, Simon Riggs wrote: >> > Because it makes it subsequent accesses to the page cheaper. >> >> Cheaper for whom? > > Everyone.
I think what you mean is "Everyone else". It is demonstrably quicker and more consistent for a process when it limits the amount of pruning it does, as well as the fact that it causes additional WAL traffic when it does so, causing replication lag. I love it when someone cleans up for me. I just don't think they'll accept the argument that they should clean up for me because it makes their life easier. Certainly doesn't work with my kids. > I don't really see the downside to this suggestion. The suggestion makes things better than they are now but is still less than I have proposed. If what you both mean is "IMHO this is an acceptable compromise", I can accept it also, at this point in the CF. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, RemoteDBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
