Re: Per-table log_autovacuum_min_duration is actually documented - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Per-table log_autovacuum_min_duration is actually documented
Date
Msg-id 29694.1447286782@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Per-table log_autovacuum_min_duration is actually documented  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Per-table log_autovacuum_min_duration is actually documented  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> I think you're remembering this:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20150402205713.GB22175@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org

> Right. Thanks. Do you think we'd still want a patch to improve that?

Give it a try if you like, and see whether it seems to improve matters.
I did not try moving material around like that in the patch I committed
earlier today.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: pageinspect patch, for showing tuple data
Next
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c