| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)surnet(dot)cl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Autovacuum in the backend |
| Date: | 2005-06-16 04:27:43 |
| Message-ID: | 20050616042743.GA14678@surnet.cl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 02:09:47PM +1000, Neil Conway wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >One issue I do have to deal with right now is how many autovacuum
> >processes do we want to be running. The current approach is to have one
> >autovacuum process. Two possible options would be to have one per
> >database, and one per tablespace. What do people think?
>
> Why do we need more than one pg_autovacuum process?
The only reason I considered it is because you can use the regular
catalog-management routines to handle the new pg_autovacuum system
catalog. With a single process, we need to issue SQL queries. This is
very ugly IMHO.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]surnet.cl>)
"Tiene valor aquel que admite que es un cobarde" (Fernandel)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2005-06-16 04:44:20 | Re: Autovacuum in the backend |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-06-16 04:14:10 | Re: Autovacuum in the backend |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2005-06-16 04:44:20 | Re: Autovacuum in the backend |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-06-16 04:14:10 | Re: Autovacuum in the backend |