Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On 8/7/2004 12:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> What? If there was consensus to do this, I missed it. If there was > >>> even any *discussion* of doing this, I missed it. > > > >> How many questions about vacuum still grabbing all available bandwidth, > >> vacuum slowing down the whole system, vacuum being all evil do you want > >> to answer for 8.0? Over and over again we are defending reasonable > >> default configuration values against gazillions of little switches, and > >> this is a reasonable default that will be a relief for large databases > >> and makes more or less no difference for small ones. > > > > What basis do you have for saying that this is a reasonable default? > > Does anyone else agree? > > Just curious, but isn't this one of the key points about pg_autovacuum in > the first place? So that you vacuum what needs to be vacuum'd, and not > *everything* ... ? Shouldn't the answer to the 'bandwidth issue' change > to 'you should install/use pg_autovacuum'?
We are talking about the vacuum delay feature, not pg_autovacuum. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
