Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Maybe we should lower the autovac naptime too, just to make it do some
more stuff (and to see if it breaks something else just because of being
running).
Well, Andrew has committed the pg_regress extension to allow buildfarm
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe we should lower the autovac naptime too, just to make it do some
> more stuff (and to see if it breaks something else just because of being
> running).
Well, Andrew has committed the pg_regress extension to allow buildfarm
animals to set nondefaul
Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > We've had that hack in there for almost a month now, and no strange
> > behaviors have turned up in the buildfarm. So I'm inclined to think
> > it has served its purpose, and we should revert it before anyone else
> > comes to bo
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> We've had that hack in there for almost a month now, and no strange
>> behaviors have turned up in the buildfarm. So I'm inclined to think
>> it has served its purpose, and we should revert it before anyone else
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We've had that hack in there for almost a month now, and no strange
> behaviors have turned up in the buildfarm. So I'm inclined to think
> it has served its purpose, and we should revert it before anyone else
> comes to bogus conclusions about performance
Tom Lane wrote:
We've had that hack in there for almost a month now, and no strange
behaviors have turned up in the buildfarm. So I'm inclined to think
it has served its purpose, and we should revert it before anyone else
comes to bogus conclusions about performance. This is particularly
the
