Re: Return of the Solaris vacuum polling problem -- anyone remember this?
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2010-08-23T16:40:32Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes: > Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of dom ago 22 12:51:47 -0400 2010: >> Do you have a suggestion? Reorder the items? > I'd add another para before that one saying that this value "also" > affects pg_clog truncation. I agree that putting pg_clog truncation as > the first item here is not an improvement. For most people, having > those pg_clog files there or not is going to be a wash, compared to data > size. I was going to suggest that the point about pg_clog should be in a separate paragraph *after* this one, since it seems like a secondary issue. But anyway, I agree with putting this para back as it was and talking about clog in a separate para. regards, tom lane