Re: is pg_autovacuum so effective ? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Bruno Wolff III
Subject Re: is pg_autovacuum so effective ?
Date
Msg-id 20050228183818.GC27212@wolff.to
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: is pg_autovacuum so effective ?  (Markus Schaber <schabios@logi-track.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 16:46:34 +0100,
  Markus Schaber <schabios@logi-track.com> wrote:
> Hi, Matthew,
>
> Matthew T. O'Connor schrieb:
>
> > The version of pg_autovacuum that I submitted for 8.0 could be
> > instructed "per table" but it didn't make the cut.  Aside from moved out
> > of contrib and integrated into the backend, per table autovacuum
> > settings is probably the next highest priority.
>
> What was the reason for non-acceptance?

It wasn't reviewed until very close to freeze due to people who could do
the review being busy and then there wasn't enough time to iron some things
out before the freeze.

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Possible interesting extra information for explain
Next
From: "Stefan Hans"
Date:
Subject: wal_sync_methods