On 10/20/2016 07:12 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Joshua D. Drake <j...@commandprompt.com> wrote:

Setting autovacuum=off is at least useful for testing purposes and
I've used it that way.  On the other hand, I haven't seen a customer
disable this unintentionally in years.  Generally, the customers I've
worked with have found subtler ways of hosing themselves with
autovacuum.  One of my personal favorites is autovacuum_naptime='1 d'
-- for the record, that did indeed work out very poorly.

Yes, I have seen that as well and you are right, it ends poorly.

I think that this the kind of problem that can only properly be solved
by education.  If somebody thinks that they want to turn off
autovacuum, and you keep them from turning it off, they just get
frustrated.  Sometimes, they then find a back-door way of getting what

I think I am coming at this from a different perspective than the -hackers. Let me put this another way.

The right answer isn't the answer founded in the reality for many if not most of our users.

What do I mean by that?

I mean that the right answer for -hackers isn't necessarily the right answer for users. Testing? Users don't test. They deploy. Education? If most people read the docs, CMD and a host of other companies would be out of business.

I am not saying I have the right solution but I am saying I think we need a *different* solution. Something that limits a *USERS* choice to turn off autovacuum. If -hackers need testing or enterprise developers need testing, let's account for that but for the user that says this:

My machine/instance bogs down every time autovacuum runs, oh I can turn it off....

Let's fix *that* problem.



Command Prompt, Inc.                  http://the.postgres.company/
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to