Re: RFC: changing autovacuum_naptime semantics

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: RFC: changing autovacuum_naptime semantics
Дата
Msg-id 23792.1173309524@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на RFC: changing autovacuum_naptime semantics  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Ответы Re: RFC: changing autovacuum_naptime semantics  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Is everybody OK with changing the autovacuum_naptime semantics?

it seems already different from 8.2, so no objection to further change.

> Is everybody OK with not putting a per-tablespace worker limit?
> Is everybody OK with putting per-database worker limits on a pg_database
> column?

I don't think we need a new pg_database column.  If it's a GUC you can
do ALTER DATABASE SET, no?  Or was that what you meant?
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Proposed ProcessUtility() API additions
Следующее
От: Gregory Stark
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: WITH/RECURSIVE plans