Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables
Date: 2013-02-04 22:16:02
Message-ID: 26517.1360016162@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 5:25 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> If the release notes are not already baked in, I would suggest this wording:

> + The main consequence of this mistake is that it
> + caused full-table vacuuming scans to occur much more frequently
> + than intended.

It's baked ... sorry about that, but when making the notes there's
seldom time to go through the threads about every patch to see if the
commit messages are accurate or not.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2013-02-04 22:27:39 Re: split rm_name and rm_desc out of rmgr.c
Previous Message Tom Lane 2013-02-04 22:13:01 Re: pgsql: Stamp 9.1.8.