Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher
Date: 2007-10-04 14:43:16
Message-ID: 20618.1191508996@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I'd also like to see vacuum_delay_point() do a test against
> CountActiveBackends() to see if anything else is running. If there all
> non-autovac processes are idle or waiting, then we should skip the delay
> point, this time only. That way a VACUUM can go at full speed on an idle
> system and slow down when people get active again. It will also help
> when people issue a DDL statement against a table that is currently
> being vacuumed. I've got a patch worked out to do this.

This is exceedingly Postgres-centric thinking.  The lack of any other
backends does not mean that the system owner wants Postgres to take over
the machine.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2007-10-04 14:46:56
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Why does the sequence skip a number withgenerate_series?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-10-04 14:29:00
Subject: Re: Connection Pools and DISCARD ALL

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group