From: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net> |
Cc: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in, PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...) |
Date: | 2002-12-10 14:42:15 |
Message-ID: | 1039531335.18314.5.camel@jester |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Not sure what you mean by that, but it sounds like the behaviour of my AVD
> > (having it block until the vacuum command completes) is fine, and perhaps
> > preferrable.
>
> I can easily imagine larger systems with multiple CPUs and multiple disk
> and card bundles to support multiple databases. In this case, I have a
> hard time figuring out why you'd not want to allow multiple concurrent
> vacuums. I guess I can understand a recommendation of only allowing a
> single vacuum, however, should it be mandated that AVD will ONLY be able
> to perform a single vacuum at a time?
Hmm.. CPU time (from what I've seen) isn't an issue. Strictly disk. The
big problem with multiple vacuums is determining which tables are in
common areas.
Perhaps a more appropriate rule would be 1 AVD per tablespace? Since
PostgreSQL only has a single tablespace at the moment....
--
Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>
PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2002-12-10 14:52:03 | Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...) |
Previous Message | Dan Langille | 2002-12-10 14:37:20 | Re: Let's create a release team |