On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > 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.
Cool! -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
