Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:07 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> Should it read "Overrides log_autovacuum_min_duration for autovacuum > >> operations on this specific table or toast table"? > > > The same applied for all the other autovacuum and autoanalyze > > parameters. Do you think that we should add in the top paragraph of > > section "Storage Parameters" a mention of the type "If this parameter > > has a server-wide equivalent parameter, the per-table value overrides > > its server-wide equivalent if defined" or similar. > > There's a whole lot of inconsistency in this area, apparently. Some of > the entries in runtime-config-autovacuum are marked as being overridable > by storage parameters, some aren't (in particular this one is not, which > may be the origin of Bruce's complaint).
log_autovacuum_min_duration was made changeable per-table recently by commit 4ff695b17d32 of April 2015, having been introduced by commit 9d3b50244357ef4, Nov 2011, while the others have been changeable for a much longer while, c.f. 834a6da4f72d of Feb 2009. > Some of the entries in > SQL-CREATETABLE-storage-parameters use the "custom" phraseology, some > don't but instead duplicate (or more often, rephrase poorly) the > documentation of the underlying GUC. I think duplication is a bad > strategy here. But I still don't care for "custom", perhaps because it's > been stretched to the point of being nearly meaningless elsewhere in the > system. "Per-table" is used in other sentences in this same area, and > that seems like a better description. Sounds fair. > I'll try to make this better. Thanks! -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, 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