Обсуждение: Autovacuum name

This may sound silly, but any chance we could change autovacuum_* GUC
variables to be vacuum_auto_* instead?

This way when you issue a SHOW ALL, all of the vacuum related parameters
would be in the same place.
-- 

Rod Taylor wrote:
> This may sound silly, but any chance we could change autovacuum_* GUC
> variables to be vacuum_auto_* instead?
> 
> This way when you issue a SHOW ALL, all of the vacuum related parameters
> would be in the same place.

Well, the autovacuum items control just autovacuum, while vacuum control
user vacuums as well.  I think they are best separate.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
 

On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 08:17 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Rod Taylor wrote:
> > This may sound silly, but any chance we could change autovacuum_* GUC
> > variables to be vacuum_auto_* instead?
> > 
> > This way when you issue a SHOW ALL, all of the vacuum related parameters
> > would be in the same place.
> 
> Well, the autovacuum items control just autovacuum, while vacuum control
> user vacuums as well.  I think they are best separate.


Users can (and I still do) log rotation by hand but the GUC variables
for that are not named autologrotate_*.

You say that like they're two different things and like most users are
going to continue to use regular vacuum. The only reason not to use the
automated vacuum is because of bugs or lack of features, both of which
will be fixed over the next couple of releases. By the time version 8.3
rolls around the use of manual vacuum will likely be very rare and we
will be stuck with GUC names that are there for historical purposes
only.

--