This has been saved for the 8.4 release:

        http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> We have these GUC variables that define a fraction of something:
> 
> #autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor = 0.2 # fraction of rel size before
>                                       # vacuum
> #autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor = 0.1        # fraction of rel size before
>                                       # analyze
> 
> #bgwriter_lru_percent = 1.0           # 0-100% of LRU buffers scanned/round
> #bgwriter_all_percent = 0.333         # 0-100% of all buffers scanned/round
> 
> Autovacuum settings use fractions, and bgwriter settings use a 
> percentage. Fortunately these settings are not related so there's not 
> too much potential for confusion, but it seems we should have a common 
> way to define settings like that.
> 
> A nice way would be that the base unit would be a fraction, like in the 
> autovacuum settings, but you could add a %-sign to give it as a percent, 
> just like you can use KB/MB etc. I'm not sure if we can do anything for 
> those without breaking backwards-compatibility, though.
> 
> Any ideas? The load distributed checkpoints patch adds one more GUC 
> variable like. I'm inclined to follow the example of the bgwriter 
> settings because it's more closely related to them, though I like the 
> autovacuum style more.
> 
> -- 
>    Heikki Linnakangas
>    EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
> 
>                http://archives.postgresql.org

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>          http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                               http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
       match

Reply via email to