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

Reply via email to