Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZ44OBjkPRLe01QXFF8ajekHQpc+ejHAju7rv4439DK3g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 4:17 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 25 January 2013 17:19, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> We
>> could easily run across a system where pg_class order happens to be
>> better than anything else we come up with.
>
> I think you should read that back to yourself and see if you still
> feel the word "easily" applies here.

I absolutely do.  You will not convince me that whacking around the
behavior of autovacuum in a maintenance release is a remotely sane
thing to do.  There are plenty of things wrong with the way autovacuum
works today, and I am all in favor of fixing them - but not in the
back-branches.  Every time we whack behavior around in the back
branches, no matter how innocuous it looks, somebody's environment
gets broken, and then they won't apply patch releases, and it causes
all sorts of headaches.  At least, that's my experience at
EnterpriseDB. YMMV.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Steve Singer
Date:
Subject: Re: Event Triggers: adding information
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Event Triggers: adding information