| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: VACUUM (INTERRUPTIBLE)? |
| Date: | 2020-09-08 22:37:05 |
| Message-ID: | 1853414.1599604625@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> So it doesn't seem that useful to not make manual analyze interruptible?
I find the main attraction of this idea is that instead of saying
"autovacuum/autoanalyze have these magic behaviors", we can say
"autovacuum/autoanalyze use option FOO". So whatever behavior
autoanalyze has today, we should make available to manual analyze,
without quibbling too hard over how much of a use-case there is.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-09-08 22:41:42 | Re: default partition and concurrent attach partition |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-09-08 22:13:58 | Re: More aggressive vacuuming of temporary tables |