On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Filip Rembiałkowski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes.
select setting from pg_settings where name = 'autovacuum';
Ah ha, thankyou! I assumed there must have been a view for the
settings, I guess I missed it when I looked at the various pg_* views.
Cheers,
-Blair
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 1:29 AM, Erik Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SHOW autovacuum;
That's even better, thanks Erik.
Cheers,
-Blair
--
In science one tries to tell people, in such a way
as to be understood by everyone, something that
no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the
exact
Hi all,
I've just upgraded to 8.3 and am looking at using autovacuum. We have
a long running application with high update frequency that
periodically issues vacuum commands itself. I'd like to be able to add
code to the app like:
if pg.autovacuum == on:
self.routine_vacuuming = False
else:
Hi all,
I'm wondering whether there would be any extra overhead (CPU, memory,
io, etc), above and beyond the implicit ACCESS SHARE, incurred by
putting a simple SELECT into a transaction block?
Cheers,
-Blair
--
In science one tries to tell people, in such a way
as to be understood by
Hi all,
I have recently turned up the postgresql logging facilities on a
rather database intensive application in the hope of finding bugs and
tuning queries. We're using 8.0.8, though thinking of moving to 8.3 as
the new HOT functionality looks like it would be useful for us given
the high
Hi all,
I'm wondering whether there would be any extra overhead (CPU, memory,
io, etc), above and beyond the implicit ACCESS SHARE, incurred by
putting a simple SELECT into a transaction block?
Cheers,
-Blair
--
In science one tries to tell people, in such a way
as to be understood by
