Re: Parallel VACUUM in feature matrix on website

From: Darren Duncan
Subject: Re: Parallel VACUUM in feature matrix on website
Date: ,
Msg-id: 5609A669.2060502@darrenduncan.net
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: Parallel VACUUM in feature matrix on website  (Josh Berkus)
List: pgsql-advocacy

Tree view

Parallel VACUUM in feature matrix on website  (Peter Geoghegan, )
 Re: Parallel VACUUM in feature matrix on website  (Peter Geoghegan, )
 Re: Parallel VACUUM in feature matrix on website  (Thom Brown, )
  Re: Parallel VACUUM in feature matrix on website  (Peter Geoghegan, )
   Re: Parallel VACUUM in feature matrix on website  (Thom Brown, )
    Re: Parallel VACUUM in feature matrix on website  (Peter Geoghegan, )
  Re: Parallel VACUUM in feature matrix on website  (Guillaume Lelarge, )
 Re: Parallel VACUUM in feature matrix on website  (Josh Berkus, )
  Re: Parallel VACUUM in feature matrix on website  (Darren Duncan, )

On 2015-09-28 10:22 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 09/27/2015 12:39 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> Also, I think "WAL Buffer auto-tuning" should be cut. It doesn't
>> warrant inclusion here. There are one or two other items that should
>> be pruned too, but less obviously so.
>
> I disagree here; I think that anything which eliminates a need for
> manual tuning is a significant feature.  Expecially if you're looking at
> the chart and trying to remember "hey, do I need to tune checkpoint
> segments on this version?"

I totally agree with Josh.  Especially for newer or less-savvy users, this means
it just became easier to use Postgres in a performant way, and ease of use gets
customers. -- Darren Duncan




pgsql-advocacy by date:

From: Darren Duncan
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel VACUUM in feature matrix on website
From: Oleg Bartunov
Date:
Subject: recent Gartner's publication