-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:13:52 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > There are two things here. One having a default value 8.2 currently
> > doesn't
>
> I'm not really convinced by this argument. pg_autovacuum was never
> designed to be user-friendly; it is designed to be the back end
> storage for something that *is* user-friendly (which we have not got
> yet). I would say that smarts about defaults ought to go into
> whatever code you are creating that inserts into pg_autovacuum.
My insert statements don't agree ;).
I can type it, I can script it. It's not that big of a deal but
consider what I am asking provides only a positive return that isn't
out of line with the scope of autovacuum configuration in general.
Your objection is let's keep it as difficult as possible within the
existing paradigm because nobody thought pg_autovacuum could be useful
in the first place.
That seems incorrect to me as we continue to have people that are going
to need to use pg_autovacuum.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
- --
The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHj9csATb/zqfZUUQRAlpAAJ4lJcj2pqqaAVz+x8SD6DpKH3cWUgCgiAfL
edr2JA2sl72rzH2ogGHxpy8=
=9FO8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
