Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum Cost Documentation?

2004-08-07 Thread Gaetano Mendola
Bruce Momjian wrote: Jan Wieck wrote: On 8/6/2004 9:04 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: Updated. Thanks. I thought we want to have the feature activated ... I reversed your change and brought guc.c in sync instead. Uh, if the guy is doing a vacuum at night, does he want the delay? Seems someone

Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum Cost Documentation?

2004-08-07 Thread Jan Wieck
On 8/6/2004 11:34 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: Jan Wieck wrote: On 8/6/2004 9:04 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: Updated. Thanks. I thought we want to have the feature activated ... I reversed your change and brought guc.c in sync instead. Uh, if the guy is doing a vacuum at night, does he want the delay?

Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum Cost Documentation?

2004-08-07 Thread Tom Lane
Jan Wieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Good that autovacuum didn't make it then, those people would have had a big surprise :-) If autovacuum had made it, would you expect someone to have enabled it by default? Without advance discussion? regards, tom lane

Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum Cost Documentation?

2004-08-07 Thread Bruce Momjian
Jan Wieck wrote: On 8/6/2004 11:34 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: Jan Wieck wrote: On 8/6/2004 9:04 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: Updated. Thanks. I thought we want to have the feature activated ... I reversed your change and brought guc.c in sync instead. Uh, if the guy is doing a

Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum Cost Documentation?

2004-08-06 Thread Bruce Momjian
Updated. Thanks. --- Matthew T. O'Connor wrote: Related to autovacuum work, I was looking into the new vacuum delay functionality. I might be missing something, but I can't find anything on it in the developer docs.

Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum Cost Documentation?

2004-08-06 Thread Jan Wieck
On 8/6/2004 9:04 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: Updated. Thanks. I thought we want to have the feature activated ... I reversed your change and brought guc.c in sync instead. Jan --- Matthew T. O'Connor wrote: Related to

Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum Cost Documentation?

2004-08-06 Thread Bruce Momjian
Jan Wieck wrote: On 8/6/2004 9:04 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: Updated. Thanks. I thought we want to have the feature activated ... I reversed your change and brought guc.c in sync instead. OK. -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum Cost Documentation?

2004-08-06 Thread Bruce Momjian
Jan Wieck wrote: On 8/6/2004 9:04 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: Updated. Thanks. I thought we want to have the feature activated ... I reversed your change and brought guc.c in sync instead. Uh, if the guy is doing a vacuum at night, does he want the delay? Seems someone should have to

Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum Cost Documentation?

2004-07-18 Thread Tom Lane
Matthew T. O'Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Related to autovacuum work, I was looking into the new vacuum delay functionality. I might be missing something, but I can't find anything on it in the developer docs. Is that right? You are not missing anything. I already nagged Jan about this

Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum Cost Documentation?

2004-07-18 Thread David Fetter
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 02:32:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Matthew T. O'Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Related to autovacuum work, I was looking into the new vacuum delay functionality. I might be missing something, but I can't find anything on it in the developer docs. Is that right?

[HACKERS] Vacuum Cost Documentation?

2004-07-17 Thread Matthew T. O'Connor
Related to autovacuum work, I was looking into the new vacuum delay functionality. I might be missing something, but I can't find anything on it in the developer docs. Is that right? Also, in the default postgresql.conf there is: #vacuum_cost_naptime = 50 # 0-1000 milliseconds however

Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum Cost Documentation?

2004-07-17 Thread Bruce Momjian
Matthew T. O'Connor wrote: Related to autovacuum work, I was looking into the new vacuum delay functionality. I might be missing something, but I can't find anything on it in the developer docs. Is that right? Also, in the default postgresql.conf there is: #vacuum_cost_naptime = 50