From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org>
Subject: Re: EnterpriseDB Postgres
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 10:30:12 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5
Cc: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org, Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>,
	Joshua_Kramer <josh@globalherald.net>
References: <f9cmli$2lu4$1@news.hub.org> <200708082338.19482.peter_e@gmx.net>
	<20070808214742.GU20424@nasby.net>
In-Reply-To: <20070808214742.GU20424@nasby.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200708091030.13110.peter_e@gmx.net>

Am Mittwoch, 8. August 2007 23:47 schrieb Decibel!:
> Well, you mentioned lack of vacuuming twice in your blog, so you're the
> last person I expected to object to this.
>
> I don't see how leaving autovacuum turned off can be a good idea in a
> package that's specifically meant to be easy.

It's more of a general observation.  Several downstream distributors turned 
autovacuum on by default some time ago, their decision process having been 
something like, "Automatic vacuum? Cool!".  There are certainly cases where 
enabling autovacuum by default is reasonable.  But remember the lengthy 
discussion we had before the 8.2 release about whether to turn it on, and the 
extensive development necessary for 8.3 to make enabling it by default safe.  
There was clearly more thought being put into it than some of the 
distributors did.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/