Re: new GUC var: autovacuum_process_all_tables
От | Jaime Casanova |
---|---|
Тема | Re: new GUC var: autovacuum_process_all_tables |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3073cc9b0902091622o10c0d2d8nc5d3f1a4546824e4@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: new GUC var: autovacuum_process_all_tables (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >>> AIUI, the main reason for table groups would be to define different >>> autovacuum policies for different groups of tables. Right now, that >>> would be pretty stupid, because there are only two possible policies: >>> "yes" and "no". >> >> not really... the idea is to let one group to have autovacuum on in >> certain periods of time and let them of the rest of the time... > > Yes, but that's a future enhancement, we don't have that now. > that was what simon was talking about, IIRC... he was speculating about a possible future syntax for grouping tables for use with a possible future postgres scheduler... >> >> well the reloptions *is* invented and non-standard syntax > > Yes, but we already have that one. IMO we should try to reuse it and > only invent new stuff if there is a compelling reason - which is so > far absent from this discussion. > reloptions is what we will use for autovacumm (actually Alvaro already applied that patch)... no one is touching that... the group syntax is for a future feature... >>> But if we do decide to invent such a syntax, it's not good enough to >>> say that we should make it general because it might be useful for a >>> purpose other than autovacuum. We should have a pretty specific idea >>> of what sort of purpose that might be. Otherwise, we'll likely find >>> (when the purpose finally arises) that the supposedly-general model we >>> introduced doesn't fit it as well as we thought. >>> >>> But right now, we don't even have ONE use case for the general syntax, >>> let alone two, because the future autovacuum enhancements that would >>> make use of that syntax haven't been designed yet (or at least haven't >>> been discussed here yet). >> >> >> --- devil's advocate mode on --- >> >> a general purpose scheduler could be used for: >> - REINDEX >> - moving data around for OLAP >> - periodically execute SP that has to change the status of a process >> in a time driven way... >> - autovacuum, and programming manual vacuums >> >> --- devil's advocate mode off --- > > AFAICS, table groups wouldn't help with any of that stuff. I think table groups are not being implemented now... it was a mere speculation about a way to apply a policy in a set of tables... actually, Alvaro's response was: "something like that" so we have to actually wait for his proposal before start a war on that and before we think it could be general enough to include other policies (like the ones for an scheduler) > you're proving my point that we have no idea what we're implementing, > so it's a little premature to talk about what else the same > infrastructure can be used for. > that's because we are not implementing that now... it's for the future... >> now, we actually can do that work with external schedulers (cron in >> linux, the windows task scheduler, etc)... the only two reasons i can >> think to prefer our own sintax for this is: pg_dump support to keep >> pilicies alive even in a fresh installed machine and marketing (two >> good reasons if you ask me) > > Which are all great points, but not what I was talking about. I am > talking about the table group stuff. > me too -- Atentamente, Jaime Casanova Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas Guayaquil - Ecuador Cel. +59387171157
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:
Следующее
От: Bryce NesbittДата:
Сообщение: Re: New pg_dump patch -- document statistics collector exception