Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables
Date
Msg-id 15009.1359136366@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I think if we backpatch this we should only prefer wraparound tables and
> leave the rest unchanged.

That's not a realistic option, at least not with anything that uses this
approach to sorting the tables.  You'd have to assume that qsort() is
stable which it probably isn't.

> I don't think the argument that the pg_class order might work better
> than anything holds that much truth - its not like thats something
> really stable.

I find that less than credible as well.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Doc patch, normalize search_path in index
Next
From: Christopher Browne
Date:
Subject: Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables