On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:39:54 +0100
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But I think we should consider removing the {auto,}vacuum_cost_delay
> parameter or at least hiding and undocumenting it. It's a foot-gun
> and serves no useful purpose that merely lowering the
> {auto,}vacuum_cost_limit can't serve equally well.
I thought we were already considering some kind of IO tweak for Vacuum,
e.g; you may use up to 5Mb/s or something like that?
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
