On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 10:36 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 11/16/10 9:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > I'm a little skeptical about creating more memory tunables. DBAs who > > are used to previous versions of PG will find that their vacuum is now > > really slow, because they adjusted maintenance_work_mem but not this > > Also, generally people who are using autovacuum don't do much manual > vacuuming, and when they do, it's easy enough to do a SET before you > issue the VACUUM statement. > > So, -1 for yet another GUC.
Agreed. If we are going to do anything, it should be pushed to a per object level (at least table) with ALTER TABLE. We don't need yet another global variable. JD -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
