| From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Dunstan <tom(at)tomd(dot)cc> |
| Subject: | Re: Mid cycle release? |
| Date: | 2006-09-15 03:01:26 |
| Message-ID: | 200609142301.26533.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thursday 14 September 2006 17:36, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> But on a serious note, the problem I run into is exactly the opposite.
> Someone will turn on autovacuum because they thought it was a good idea
> and for their work load, it isn't. So instead of creating new and
> interesting ways to allow their database to be more efficient, I am
> dealing with snafu's created by my own community.
>
> Leaving autovacuum on will cement the idea that it *should* be on and
> IMHO it shouldn't without specific and careful planning.
>
Clearly it's better to have auto-vacuum on than to do nothing, so why not give
our users a better starting position if we can? Otherwise why are we doing
things like attempting to auto-set options in the conf file based on system
specs?
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Treat | 2006-09-15 03:03:01 | Re: Mid cycle release? |
| Previous Message | andy | 2006-09-15 01:45:01 | Re: [ADMIN] Vacuum error on database postgres |