On Friday, January 13, 2012 10:50:32 PM Josh Berkus wrote:
> It occurs to me that I would find it quite personally useful if the
> vacuumdb utility was multiprocess capable.
> For example, just today I needed to manually analyze a database with
> over 500 tables, on a server with 24 cores. And I needed to know when
> the analyze was done, because it was part of a downtime. I had to
> resort to a python script.
> I'm picturing doing this in the simplest way possible: get the list of
> tables and indexes, divide them by the number of processes, and give
> each child process its own list.
That doesn't sound like a good idea. Its way too likely that you will end up
with one backend doing all the work because it got some big tables.
I don't think this task deserves using threads or subprocesses. Multiple
connections from one process seems way more sensible and mostly avoids the
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Euler Taveira de Oliveira||Date: 2012-01-13 22:12:35|
|Subject: Re: 9.3 feature proposal: vacuumdb -j #|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-01-13 22:05:34|
|Subject: Re: Concurrent CREATE TABLE/DROP SCHEMA leaves inconsistent leftovers|