On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 10:41:43PM -0500, Greg Smith wrote: > Just trying to set the expectations bar realistically here. I don't > consider the easier problem of checkpoint smoothing a solved one, > either. Saying autovacuum needs to reach even that level of > automation to be a useful improvement over now is a slippery goal. > Regardless, the simple idea I submitted to this CF is clearly dead > for now. I'll take the feedback of "this level of change can live > in a user-side tuning tool" and do that instead. Since I was > already thinking in the direction of background activity monitoring, > I have a good idea how I'd need to approach this next, to be more > likely to gain community buy-in as an automated improvement. That's > a longer term project though, which I'll hopefully be able to > revisit for 9.3.
Totally agree. If it is hard for us, it is super-hard to admins to set this, so we had better give it serious thought. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
