On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> I favor option (a). There's something to be said for your proposal
>> in terms of logical consistency with what we have now, but to be
>> honest I'm not sure it's the behavior anyone wants (I would welcome
>> more feedback on what people actually want). I think we should view
>> an attempt to set a limit for a particular table as a way to control
>> the rate at which that table is vacuumed - period.
>
> After re-reading this whole thread one more time, I think I have come to
> agree with you and Amit here, because not only it is simpler to
> implement, but it is also simpler to document. Per Greg Smith's opinion
> elsewhere in the thread, it seems that for end users it doesn't make
> sense to make the already complicated mechanism even more complicated.
>
> So in essence what we're going to do is that the balance mechanism
> considers only tables that don't have per-table configuration options;
> for those that do, we will use the values configured there without any
> changes.
>
> I'll see about implementing this and making sure it finds its way to
> 9.4beta3.
Cool!
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
