Peter Eisentraut escribió: > On 1/25/13 10:29 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > And I do want to get something back-patchable. > > Autovacuum has existed for N years and nobody complained about this > until just now, so I don't see a strong justification for backpatching.
I disagree about people not complaining. Maybe the complaints have not been specifically about the wraparound stuff and toast tables, but for sure there have been complaints about autovacuum not giving more priority to tables that need work more urgently. > Or is this a regression from an earlier release? Nope. > In general, I think we should backpatch less. I don't disagree with this general principle, but I certainly don't like the idea of letting systems run with known flaws just because we're too scared to patch them. Now I don't object to a plan such as keep it in master only for a while and backpatch after it has seen some more testing. But for large sites, this is a real problem and they have to work around it manually which is frequently inconvenient; keep in mind 9.0 is going to be supported for years yet. That said, if consensus here is to not backpatch this at all, I will go with that; but let's have the argument first. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers