On Thursday 28 November 2002 23:26, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> On 28 Nov 2002 at 10:45, Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> writes:
> > > interesting thought. I think this boils down to how many knobs do we
> > > need to put on this system. It might make sense to say allow upto X
> > > concurrent vacuums, a 4 processor system might handle 4 concurrent
> > > vacuums very well.
> > This is almost certainly a bad idea. vacuum is not very
> > processor-intensive, but it is disk-intensive. Multiple vacuums running
> > at once will suck more disk bandwidth than is appropriate for a
> > "background" operation, no matter how sexy your CPU is. I can't see
> > any reason to allow more than one auto-scheduled vacuum at a time.
> Hmm.. We would need to take care of that as well..
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
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Matthew T. O'Connor||Date: 2002-11-29 13:05:41|
|Subject: Re: nested transactions|
|Previous:||From: Masaru Sugawara||Date: 2002-11-29 12:16:23|
|Subject: Re: Is current_user a function ?|