| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Hitoshi Harada" <hitoshi_harada(at)forcia(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "'Peter Eisentraut'" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] smartvacuum() instead of autovacuum |
| Date: | 2006-10-23 02:09:52 |
| Message-ID: | 10306.1161569392@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Hitoshi Harada" <hitoshi_harada(at)forcia(dot)com> writes:
>> How is this different from what autovacuum does?
> My application needs to do vacuum by itself, while
> autovacuum does it as daemon.
> The database is updated so frequently that
> normal vacuum costs too much and tables to be updated are
> not so many as the whole database is vacuumed.
> I want to use autovacuum except the feature of daemon,
> but want to control when to vacuum and which table to vacuum.
> So, nothing is different between autovacuum and smartvacuum(),
> but former is daemon and later is user function.
This seems completely unconvincing. What are you going to do that
couldn't be done by autovacuum?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-23 02:17:16 | Re: New CRC algorithm: Slicing by 8 |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-10-23 01:25:10 | Re: New CRC algorithm: Slicing by 8 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hitoshi Harada | 2006-10-23 02:18:39 | Re: [PATCHES] smartvacuum() instead of autovacuum |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-23 02:07:21 | Re: BUG #2712: could not fsync segment: Permission denied |