On 10/20/16 11:50 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
Personally what I think is needed here is to make monitoring and bloat
visibility not completely suck. So we can warn users if tables haven't
been vac'd in ages and have recent churn. And so they can easily SELECT
a view to get bloat estimates with an
On 21 Oct. 2016 12:57 am, "Joshua D. Drake" wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> What about a simpler solution to all of this. Let's just remove it from
postgresql.conf. Out of sight. If someone needs to test they can but a
uneducated user won't immediately know what to do about that
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Joshua D. Drake
wrote:
> That argument suggests we shouldn't have autovacuum :P
It certainly does not. That, too, would be removing a useful option.
In fact, it would be removing the most useful option that is the right
choice for most
Hello,
What about a simpler solution to all of this. Let's just remove it from
postgresql.conf. Out of sight. If someone needs to test they can but a
uneducated user won't immediately know what to do about that "autovacuum
process" and when they look it up the documentation is exceedingly
On 10/20/2016 09:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Joshua D. Drake
wrote:
The right answer isn't the answer founded in the reality for many if not
most of our users.
I think that's high-handed nonsense. Sure, there are some
unsophisticated
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Joshua D. Drake
> wrote:
>> The right answer isn't the answer founded in the reality for many if not
>> most of our users.
>
> I think that's high-handed
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Joshua D. Drake
wrote:
> The right answer isn't the answer founded in the reality for many if not
> most of our users.
I think that's high-handed nonsense. Sure, there are some
unsophisticated users who do incredibly stupid things and
On 10/20/2016 07:12 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Joshua D. Drake 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
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> After all these years, we are still regularly running into people who say,
> "performance was bad so we disabled autovacuum". I am not talking about once
> in a while, it is often. I would like us to consider
Hello,
After all these years, we are still regularly running into people who
say, "performance was bad so we disabled autovacuum". I am not talking
about once in a while, it is often. I would like us to consider removing
the autovacuum option. Here are a few reasons:
1. It does not hurt
10 matches
Mail list logo