On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 01:54:48PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 07:31:03PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > >> I am not saying it shouldn't be improved, I just don't see the point of > >> bringing it up while everyone is busy with the last CF and claiming it > >> is unusable and that stating that it is surprisising that nobody really > >> cares. > > > Well, I brought it up in September too. My point was not that it is a > > new issue but that it has been such an ignored issue for two years. I > > am not asking for a fix, but right now we don't even have a plan on how > > to improve this. > > Indeed, and considering that we're all busy with the CF, I think it's > quite unreasonable of you to expect that we'll drop everything else > to think about this problem right now. The reason it's like it is > is that it's not easy to see how to make it better; so even if we did > drop everything else, it's not clear to me that any plan would emerge > anytime soon.
Well, documenting the VACUUM requirement and adding it to the TODO list are things we should consider for 9.4. If you think doing that after the commit-fest is best, I can do that. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
