Robert Haas wrote: > I favor option (a). There's something to be said for your proposal > in terms of logical consistency with what we have now, but to be > honest I'm not sure it's the behavior anyone wants (I would welcome > more feedback on what people actually want). I think we should view > an attempt to set a limit for a particular table as a way to control > the rate at which that table is vacuumed - period.
After re-reading this whole thread one more time, I think I have come to agree with you and Amit here, because not only it is simpler to implement, but it is also simpler to document. Per Greg Smith's opinion elsewhere in the thread, it seems that for end users it doesn't make sense to make the already complicated mechanism even more complicated. So in essence what we're going to do is that the balance mechanism considers only tables that don't have per-table configuration options; for those that do, we will use the values configured there without any changes. I'll see about implementing this and making sure it finds its way to 9.4beta3. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
