| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)tocr(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Galy Lee <lee(dot)galy(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview |
| Date: | 2007-02-27 17:23:30 |
| Message-ID: | 21418.1172597010@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew(at)tocr(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> It occurs to me that we may be thinking about this the wrong way
>> entirely. Perhaps a more useful answer to the problem of using a
>> defined maintenance window is to allow VACUUM to respond to changes in
>> the vacuum cost delay settings on-the-fly. So when your window closes,
>> you don't abandon your work so far, you just throttle your I/O rate back
>> to whatever's considered acceptable for daytime vacuuming.
> I thought we already did that?
No, we only react to SIGHUP when idle. I think that's a good policy for
standard backends, but for autovacuum it might be appropriate to check
more often.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2007-02-27 17:24:40 | Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2 |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-02-27 17:23:22 | Re: Seeking Google SoC Mentors |