Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Michael Paesold wrote: >> Yeah, I thought we had agreed that we must cancel all auto vacuum/analyzes, >> on the ground that foreground operations are usually more important than >> maintenance tasks.
> What this means is that autovacuum will be starved a lot of the time, Not really, because DDL changes aren't *that* common (at least not for non-temp tables). I think the consensus was that we should cancel autovac in these cases unless it is an anti-wraparound vacuum. Isn't that why you were putting in the flag to show it is for wraparound? regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly