On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 10:41:43PM -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
> Just trying to set the expectations bar realistically here. I don't
> consider the easier problem of checkpoint smoothing a solved one,
> either. Saying autovacuum needs to reach even that level of
> automation to be a useful improvement over now is a slippery goal.
> Regardless, the simple idea I submitted to this CF is clearly dead
> for now. I'll take the feedback of "this level of change can live
> in a user-side tuning tool" and do that instead. Since I was
> already thinking in the direction of background activity monitoring,
> I have a good idea how I'd need to approach this next, to be more
> likely to gain community buy-in as an automated improvement. That's
> a longer term project though, which I'll hopefully be able to
> revisit for 9.3.
Totally agree. If it is hard for us, it is super-hard to admins to set
this, so we had better give it serious thought.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
