| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2 |
| Date: | 2007-02-27 03:43:34 |
| Message-ID: | 10348.1172547814@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm inclined to propose an even simpler algorithm in which every worker
>> acts alike;
> That is what I'm proposing except for one difference, when you catch up
> to an older worker, exit.
No, that's a bad idea, because it means that any large table starves
even-larger tables.
(Note: in all this I assume we're all using "size" as a shorthand for
some sort of priority metric that considers number of dirty tuples not
only size. We don't want every worker insisting on passing over every
small read-only table every time, for instance.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-02-27 03:48:49 | Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2 |
| Previous Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2007-02-27 03:32:06 | Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2 |