Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher
Date: 2007-10-04 14:27:52
Message-ID: 1191508072.4223.138.camel@ebony.site (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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.

-- 
  Simon Riggs
  2ndQuadrant  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-10-04 14:29:00
Subject: Re: Connection Pools and DISCARD ALL
Previous:From: Shane AmblerDate: 2007-10-04 14:25:14
Subject: Re: Why does the sequence skip a number with generate_series?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group