On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 17:08 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 16:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> It'd make more sense to put the effort into developing > >> better scheduling control over autovacuum, such as a concept of > >> maintenance windows. > > > We need that as well, not instead of. > > I disagree; adding every frammish anyone could ever think of is not > an overall improvement to the system.
I like your word frammish and am watchful of such things myself. > My feeling is that we should be trying to eliminate use-cases for > cron-driven vacuuming, Agreed. > not trying to make sure that cron-driven > scripts can do anything autovacuum can. I'm not in favour of limiting our capability to internal actions only. If we add a capability for scheduling work, we can easily make it capable of scheduling many kinds of work. Writing an application maintenance utility in PL/pgSQL is much better than having to write it for all the different servers an application may need to run on. We can't ignore that many people use Windows. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
