Re: RFC: changing autovacuum_naptime semantics - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: RFC: changing autovacuum_naptime semantics
Date
Msg-id 20070308181828.GY4715@alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: RFC: changing autovacuum_naptime semantics  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:

> > 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?

No, that doesn't work unless we save the datconfig column to the
pg_database flatfile, because it's the launcher (which is not connected) 
who needs to read it.  Same thing with an hypothetical per-database
naptime.  The launcher would also need to parse it, which is not ideal
(though not a dealbreaker either).

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Gregory Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Estimating seq_page_fetch and random_page_fetch
Next
From: Doug Knight
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] pg_standby