Jan Wieck wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Jan Wieck wrote:
> >> Attached is a corrected version that solves the query cancel problem by
> >> not napping any more and going full speed as soon as any signal is
> >> pending. If nobody objects, I'm going to commit this tomorrow.
> > Jan, three questions. First, is this useful now that we have the new
> > cache replacement code, second, do we need this many parameters (can't
> > any of them be autotuned), and third, what about documentation?
> You mean if stopping to nap is useful when a signal is pending or if
> napping during vacuum itself is useful at all?
> I am willing to make it all self tuning and automagic. Just tell me how.
I was hoping you would have some ideas. :-)
I guess my question is that now that we have the new cache replacement
policy, is the vacuum delay worth while. I looked at
http://developer.postgresql.org/~wieck/vacuum_cost/ and does seem
> Documentation is missing so far. Will work on that.
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Rod Taylor||Date: 2004-02-13 02:53:45|
|Subject: Re: 7.4 - FK constraint performance|
|Previous:||From: ow||Date: 2004-02-13 01:22:53|
|Subject: Re: 7.4 - FK constraint performance |
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Christopher Browne||Date: 2004-02-13 04:20:53|
|Subject: Re: Vacuum Delay feature|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-02-12 23:52:08|
|Subject: Re: ANALYZE patch for review |