Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 13:41 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
...
FWIW I disagree with cancelling just any autovac work automatically; in
my patch I'm only cancelling if it's analyze, on the grounds that if
you have really bad luck you can potentially lose a lot of work that
Michael Paesold wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 13:41 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
...
FWIW I disagree with cancelling just any autovac work automatically; in
my patch I'm only cancelling if it's analyze, on the grounds that if
you have really bad luck you can potentially
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Michael Paesold wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 13:41 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
...
FWIW I disagree with cancelling just any autovac work automatically; in
my patch I'm only cancelling if it's analyze, on the grounds that if
you have really bad luck
Michael Paesold wrote:
In the previous discussion, Simon and me agreed that schema changes
should not happen on a regular basis on production systems.
Shouldn't we rather support the regular usage pattern instead of the
uncommon one? Users doing a lot of schema changes are the ones who
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
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael Paesold wrote:
Shouldn't we rather support the regular usage pattern instead of the
uncommon one? Users doing a lot of schema changes are the ones who
should have to work around issues, not those using a DBMS sanely. No?
Unfortunately, doing
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael Paesold wrote:
Shouldn't we rather support the regular usage pattern instead of the
uncommon one? Users doing a lot of schema changes are the ones who
should have to work around issues, not those using a DBMS sanely. No?
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 13:51 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Michael Paesold wrote:
In the previous discussion, Simon and me agreed that schema changes
should not happen on a regular basis on production systems.
Shouldn't we rather support the regular usage pattern instead of the
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 13:51 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Michael Paesold wrote:
In the previous discussion, Simon and me agreed that schema changes
should not happen on a regular basis on production systems.
Shouldn't we rather support the regular usage pattern
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael Paesold wrote:
Shouldn't we rather support the regular usage pattern instead of the
uncommon one? Users doing a lot of schema changes are the ones who
should have to work around issues, not those using a DBMS sanely. No?
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 03:54:28PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 13:51 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Michael Paesold wrote:
In the previous discussion, Simon and me agreed that schema
changes should not happen on a regular basis on production
11 matches
Mail list logo
