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
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 sane
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 in
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
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
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?
> Unfortunate
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 starve
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
shou
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 yo
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 pot
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
vacuu
11 matches
Mail list logo
