Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> writes:
> >> On 8/7/2004 12:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> What? If there was consensus to do this, I missed it. If there was
> >>> even any *discussion* of doing this, I missed it.
> >
> >> How many questions about vacuum still grabbing all available bandwidth,
> >> vacuum slowing down the whole system, vacuum being all evil do you want
> >> to answer for 8.0? Over and over again we are defending reasonable
> >> default configuration values against gazillions of little switches, and
> >> this is a reasonable default that will be a relief for large databases
> >> and makes more or less no difference for small ones.
> >
> > What basis do you have for saying that this is a reasonable default?
> > Does anyone else agree?
>
> Just curious, but isn't this one of the key points about pg_autovacuum in
> the first place? So that you vacuum what needs to be vacuum'd, and not
> *everything* ... ? Shouldn't the answer to the 'bandwidth issue' change
> to 'you should install/use pg_autovacuum'?
We are talking about the vacuum delay feature, not pg_autovacuum.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073