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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: RFC: changing autovacuum_naptime semantics
Date
Msg-id 23792.1173309524@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to RFC: changing autovacuum_naptime semantics  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: RFC: changing autovacuum_naptime semantics  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Is everybody OK with changing the autovacuum_naptime semantics?

it seems already different from 8.2, so no objection to further change.

> 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?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Proposed ProcessUtility() API additions
Next
From: Gregory Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: WITH/RECURSIVE plans