Added to TODO:
o Store per-table autovacuum settings in pg_class.reloptions.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-02/msg01440.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-01/msg00724.php
On Thursday 17 January 2008 19:17:00 Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:43:46 -0300
>
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > All this thread is a waste of time. We've previously agreed that
> > > > we're
On 18/01/2008, Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you picturing adding ALTER TABLE commands to set autovacuum parameters? Or
> do you mean for tools like pgadmin to control this? Because the latter could
> happen even during the 8.3 cycle (though I perhaps not with pgadmin itself
> whic
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 01:07:27AM +, Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> You are offering what appears to be a "solution". A perfectly valid one
> >> in fact. Which one is going to get done first? Which one is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:34:07 -0500
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Are you picturing adding ALTER TABLE commands to set autovacuum
> > parameters?
>
> Well, as I said, I was trying to think of an ap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:43:46 -0300
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > All this thread is a waste of time. We've previously agreed that
> > > we're going to store autovacuum
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are you picturing adding ALTER TABLE commands to set autovacuum
> parameters?
Well, as I said, I was trying to think of an appropriate user-visible
API, which I didn't think that pg_autovacuum itself could become.
Further downthread Alvaro points out th
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> You are offering what appears to be a "solution". A perfectly valid one
>> in fact. Which one is going to get done first? Which one is going to
>> provide immediate benefit?
>
> The problem is that your "imm
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > All this thread is a waste of time. We've previously agreed that we're
> > going to store autovacuum per-table settings in pg_class.reloptions.
>
> I had forgotten that discussion. So the plan is for the pg_autovacuum
> catalog to
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> All this thread is a waste of time. We've previously agreed that we're
> going to store autovacuum per-table settings in pg_class.reloptions.
I had forgotten that discussion. So the plan is for the pg_autovacuum
catalog to go away entirely, correct?
All this thread is a waste of time. We've previously agreed that we're
going to store autovacuum per-table settings in pg_class.reloptions.
That automatically gives it pg_dump support, and moreover it means the
user needs not set the options that he/she doesn't want to change from
defaults.
--
A
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You are offering what appears to be a "solution". A perfectly valid one
> in fact. Which one is going to get done first? Which one is going to
> provide immediate benefit?
The problem is that your "immediate benefit" is to encourage people
to do dir
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:38:57 -0500
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Your objection is let's keep it as difficult as possible within the
> > existing paradigm because nobody thought pg_autovacuum c
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Your objection is let's keep it as difficult as possible within the
> existing paradigm because nobody thought pg_autovacuum could be useful
> in the first place.
No, my point is that there's no value in putting band-aids on an object
that was never
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:13:52 -0500
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There are two things here. One having a default value 8.2 currently
> > doesn't
>
> I'm
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are two things here. One having a default value 8.2 currently
> doesn't
I'm not really convinced by this argument. pg_autovacuum was never
designed to be user-friendly; it is designed to be the back end st
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:54:47 -0500
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - -1? That way by default it will use the settings in
> > postgresql.conf?
>
> Surely we're not going to force initdb for that.
I didn't realize it would take that so sure le
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can we by default set vac_cost_limit and vac_cost_delay have a DEFAULT
> - -1? That way by default it will use the settings in postgresql.conf?
Surely we're not going to force initdb for that.
> Secondly can we set the default for freeze_min_age to
18 matches
Mail list logo
