On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>> Just curious, but isn't this one of the key points about pg_autovacuum in
>> the first place? So that you vacuum what needs to be vacuum'd, and not
>> *everything* ... ? Shouldn't the answer to the 'bandwidth issue' change
>> to 'you should install/use pg_autovacuum'?
> No, not really, but I think it's much more likely that you'd want to
> enable vacuum delay for autovacuum-commanded vacuums than vacuums
> commanded interactively. Or, if you still prefer the old-tech way of
> performing routine vacuums from a cron script, you'd probably turn on
> vacuum delay in that cron script.
> I think we *should* add to autovacuum a parameter to let it set
> vacuum_delay for its vacuums, and maybe even default to having it on.
> But I'm unconvinced we want any delay as the global default.
how about having it as part of the SQL?
VACUUM ANALYZE DELAY;
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
In response to
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-08-07 19:26:32|
|Subject: Re: pgsql-server: Vacuum delay activated by default. |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-08-07 19:14:45|
|Subject: pgsql-server: Improve markup a little.|