Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:28:34 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org,
 Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] autovacuum: use case for indenpedent TOAST
	table autovac settings
Message-ID: <20080814012834.GG4672@alvh.no-ip.org>
References: <20080813212838.GA4683@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<18539.1218675190@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <18539.1218675190@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > Does anyone see a need for having TOAST tables be individually
> > configurable for autovacuum?  I've finally come around to looking at
> > being able to use ALTER TABLE for autovacuum settings, and I'm wondering
> > if we need to support that case.
> 
> 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.

Yeah, Magnus was suggesting this syntax:

ALTER TABLE foo SET toast_autovacuum_enable = false;
and the like.

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.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support