Hannu Krosing wrote:
> Due to current implementation of vacuum,
> you have to abandon continuous vacuuming during vacuum of bigtable, but
> i have written and submitted to "patches" list a patch which allows
> vacuums not to block each other out, this is stalled due to Tom's
> "unesyness" about its possible hidden effects, but it should be
> available from "patches" list to anyone in distress :p
Do you use it in production? Have you noticed any ill effects?
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Lukas Smith||Date: 2006-02-28 23:02:55|
|Subject: Re: [PERFORM] temporary indexes|
|Previous:||From: Mark Kirkwood||Date: 2006-02-28 22:42:37|
|Subject: Re: pg_config, pg_service.conf, postgresql.conf ....|