Ron Mayer wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> >>I never heard any discussion on whether this should be backpatched to
> >>8.0.X. Should it?
> I personally think it should _not_ be backpatched. Since it
> doesn't fix any bugs, it's not really the kind of thing I
> would expect to be backpatched.
OK, just asking.
> > I'm not inclined to throw it in at the last minute, as it's not been
> > through any testing and I'm not sure the behavior has really been agreed
> > on anyway. (The diff you cite starts from code that's not in 8.0.* either.)
> Regarding the behavior I pretty much thought it was agreed upon.
> I saw people proposing reasons advocating both the log file and
> the client getting the message. Simon's "Can we have both?"
> comment got one positive response (Bruce's with the patch) and
> no negative ones, I thought that indicated general agreement.
> If we did want to re-open the behavior question, I might mention
> that this message is only printed on a database-wide VACUUM; and
> with autovacuum targeting specific tables such database-wide
> VACUUMs might become more and more rare. But I think that's a
> separate issue.
Yea, I think we are agreed. I was not asking for 8.0.2 but just 8.0.X
in general. I ask only to see if someone jumps up and wants to explain
why it should be in 8.0.X.
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
email@example.com | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings