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

• Re: pgsql-server: Vacuum delay activated by default. at 2004-08-07 18:06:33 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: pgsql-server: Vacuum delay activated by default. at 2004-08-07 19:26:32 from Tom Lane

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.