Gaetano Mendola wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
Is in the last Tom's patch about Vacuum sleep between pages ?
that won't be in v7.4, to the best of my knowledge ...
Definitely not. It's a very experimental patch.
I not agree, is an experimental patch that introduce just a delay, you now it better than me, and this delay can be shipped with a default value 0. Alias an experimental feature that can be disabled.
Something that knowingly introduces portability issues and platform dependant behaviour is absolutely inacceptable this late in the release cycle where we already have a significant number of platform reports. Configurable or not doesn't matter.
I see your point, anyway we'll see on the road how much people that know the existence of that patch will have in production a 7.4 + the patch.
May be an User Survey will be usefull ?
I spoke for my reality where with postgres we manage a service that
must be up and running 24/24 h 7/7 d.
( http://www.myopensky.com/os/OSwork.html )
I'm really stressed by the peoples that manage the service about
to do an Oracle migration, and the argumentation is always about the vacuum procedure that push down the db performances.
I think that we are going to see a lot of 7.4 installation with that patch applied.
We are using usleep() and other equally risky functionality here to quickly get something hooked together that confirms one theory or another. We explicitly discourage people from attempting to squeeze this sort of theory evaluation code into production installations.
I agree in general with you for these "general" arguments, but here we are talking about to introduce a sleep ( removable by guc ) or not! What about the hash refactoring introduced with 7.4? Are you going to
discourage people to use the hash?
Regards Gaetano Mendola
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
