On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 2:30 PM Alena Rybakina
wrote:
>
> Looking at them, I am willing to agree with you
Cool. Thanks to everyone for the review. I've pushed it.
- Melanie
On 14.01.2025 22:01, Melanie Plageman wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 1:21 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2025-Jan-13, Melanie Plageman wrote:
I've gone with VACUUM_AUTOVACUUM, VACUUM_COST_DELAY, and
VACUUM_FREEZING, but I am open to feedback.
Looks good to me. I checked these two queries, whos
On 2025-Jan-14, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 1:21 PM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > 55432 18devel 560655=# select name, category from pg_settings where
> > (short_desc ilike '%vacuum%' or extra_desc ilike '%vacuum%') and category
> > not ilike '%vacuum%';
> > nam
On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 1:21 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2025-Jan-13, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>
> > I've gone with VACUUM_AUTOVACUUM, VACUUM_COST_DELAY, and
> > VACUUM_FREEZING, but I am open to feedback.
>
> Looks good to me. I checked these two queries, whose results appear
> correct:
>
> 5
On 2025-Jan-13, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> I've gone with VACUUM_AUTOVACUUM, VACUUM_COST_DELAY, and
> VACUUM_FREEZING, but I am open to feedback.
Looks good to me. I checked these two queries, whose results appear
correct:
55432 18devel 560655=# select name, category from pg_settings where categ
Hi!
On 14.01.2025 01:35, Melanie Plageman wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 3:46 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2025-Jan-13, Melanie Plageman wrote:
Since I didn't hear back about this and I don't see an obvious
alternative reorganization in guc_tables.c, I plan to just push the
attached patch tha
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 3:46 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2025-Jan-13, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>
> > Since I didn't hear back about this and I don't see an obvious
> > alternative reorganization in guc_tables.c, I plan to just push the
> > attached patch that updates only postgresql.conf.sample
On 2025-Jan-13, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> Since I didn't hear back about this and I don't see an obvious
> alternative reorganization in guc_tables.c, I plan to just push the
> attached patch that updates only postgresql.conf.sample.
Apologies, I was very unclear -- I didn't want to talk about th
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 10:22 AM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> Thanks to Álvaro for pointing this out. I didn't think of it.
>
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 2:21 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> > > On 11 Jan 2025, at 10:02, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > >> and the GUC grouping in g
Thanks to Álvaro for pointing this out. I didn't think of it.
On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 2:21 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> > On 11 Jan 2025, at 10:02, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> and the GUC grouping in guc_tables.c/h?
>
> > I don't know what our policy around this is, and may
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> On 11 Jan 2025, at 10:02, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> and the GUC grouping in guc_tables.c/h?
> I don't know what our policy around this is, and maybe the backpatching hazard
> isn't too bad here, but it doesn't entirely seem worth the churn.
I think the entire point of
> On 11 Jan 2025, at 10:02, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2025-Jan-10, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>
>> Consolidate docs for vacuum-related GUCs in new subsection
>
> Hmm, doesn't this need a corresponding rearrangement of the
> postgresql.conf.sample file
That's a good point.
> and the GUC groupi
On 2025-Jan-10, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> Consolidate docs for vacuum-related GUCs in new subsection
Hmm, doesn't this need a corresponding rearrangement of the
postgresql.conf.sample file and the GUC grouping in guc_tables.c/h?
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.Ent
13 matches
Mail list logo
