On 3/10/10 3:26 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> OK, that's enough to not remove it. I was aware of more negative
> thoughts and conscious of my own feelings about it being a kluge.
Well, it *is* a kludge, but it may be the best one for people who want
to use HS/SR to support web applications. So I think
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 17:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
> >>> Time to remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age, I think.
> >>
> >> Umm, so what's the bug?
>
> > Whether you call it a bug or just an annoyance is debatable, but the
> > source of it is clear.
>
> Maybe to you, but the rest
Simon Riggs writes:
>>> Time to remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age, I think.
>>
>> Umm, so what's the bug?
> Whether you call it a bug or just an annoyance is debatable, but the
> source of it is clear.
Maybe to you, but the rest of us would like to know.
> Given the lack of effectiveness, I prop
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 23:08 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >
> > Time to remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age, I think.
>
> Umm, so what's the bug?
Whether you call it a bug or just an annoyance is debatable, but the
source of it is clear. Given the lack of effectiveness, I propose
removing it.
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 22:02 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> 1. Set up 9.0a4 doing SR replication with a 2nd 9.0a4
>> 2. Ran pgbench for a while.
>> 3. Aborted pgbench with Ctl-C
>> 4. Changed vacuum_defer_cleanup_age in postgresql.conf and reloaded
>> 5. Ran pgbench again, and
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 22:02 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> 1. Set up 9.0a4 doing SR replication with a 2nd 9.0a4
> 2. Ran pgbench for a while.
> 3. Aborted pgbench with Ctl-C
> 4. Changed vacuum_defer_cleanup_age in postgresql.conf and reloaded
> 5. Ran pgbench again, and got:
>
> Sidney-Stratton:pg
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We may need to document it, but not like that; it's (a) incorrect and
>> (b) unhelpful to the reader, who is left without any clear idea of what
>> to avoid. I think that the real issue here
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> We may need to document it, but not like that; it's (a) incorrect and
> (b) unhelpful to the reader, who is left without any clear idea of what
> to avoid. I think that the real issue here doesn't have anything to do
> with NEW/OLD as such, but i
