But my point is, autovacuum may corrupt with vacuum analyze command
on another session. My intention of smartvacuum() is based on this.
Any solution for this??
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 11:10 AM
> To: Hitoshi Harada
> Cc: 'Peter Eisentraut'; pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] smartvacuum() instead of autovacuum
> "Hitoshi Harada" <hitoshi_harada(at)forcia(dot)com> writes:
> >> How is this different from what autovacuum does?
> > My application needs to do vacuum by itself, while
> > autovacuum does it as daemon.
> > The database is updated so frequently that
> > normal vacuum costs too much and tables to be updated are
> > not so many as the whole database is vacuumed.
> > I want to use autovacuum except the feature of daemon,
> > but want to control when to vacuum and which table to vacuum.
> > So, nothing is different between autovacuum and smartvacuum(),
> > but former is daemon and later is user function.
> This seems completely unconvincing. What are you going to do that
> couldn't be done by autovacuum?
> regards, tom lane
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2006-10-23 02:18:45|
|Subject: Re: New CRC algorithm: Slicing by 8|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-10-23 02:17:16|
|Subject: Re: New CRC algorithm: Slicing by 8 |
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Thomas H.||Date: 2006-10-23 09:52:58|
|Subject: Re: BUG #2712: could not fsync segment: Permission denied|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-10-23 02:09:52|
|Subject: Re: [PATCHES] smartvacuum() instead of autovacuum |