Subject: Re: [HACKERS] autovacuum: use case for indenpedent TOAST
	table autovac settings
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <21063.1218677426@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <20080813212838.GA4683@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<18539.1218675190@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20080814012834.GG4672@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<21063.1218677426@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:51:01 +0100
Message-Id: <1218707461.5343.435.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 21:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> It seems like we'll want to do it somehow.  Perhaps the cleanest way is
> >> to incorporate toast-table settings in the reloptions of the parent
> >> table.  Otherwise dump/reload is gonna be a mess.
> 
> > My question is whether there is interest in actually having support for
> > this, or should we just inherit the settings from the main table.  My
> > gut feeling is that this may be needed in some cases, but perhaps I'm
> > overengineering the thing.
> 
> It seems reasonable to inherit the parent's settings by default, in any
> case.  So you could do that now and then extend the feature later if
> there's real demand.

Yeh, I can't really see a reason why you'd want to treat toast tables
differently with regard to autovacuuming. It's one more setting to get
wrong, so no thanks.

-- 
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com
 PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support