On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 11:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> In any case, this would still only fix things for pg_restore, and I
> remain concerned that people will gripe about autovacuum blocking
> locks. The idea of kicking autovac off tables remains probably more
> interesting in the long run.
Yes, sounds good.
I'd also like to see vacuum_delay_point() do a test against
CountActiveBackends() to see if anything else is running. If there all
non-autovac processes are idle or waiting, then we should skip the delay
point, this time only. That way a VACUUM can go at full speed on an idle
system and slow down when people get active again. It will also help
when people issue a DDL statement against a table that is currently
being vacuumed. I've got a patch worked out to do this.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-10-04 14:29:00|
|Subject: Re: Connection Pools and DISCARD ALL |
|Previous:||From: Shane Ambler||Date: 2007-10-04 14:25:14|
|Subject: Re: Why does the sequence skip a number with generate_series?|