| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Buglist |
| Date: | 2003-08-20 21:58:32 |
| Message-ID: | 21676.1061416712@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> What about a little hint to the buffer management that if it has to
> evict another buffer to physically read this one (meaning the buffer
> pool was full already) then it will not put this buffer at the top of
> the LRU chain but rather at it's end? This way a vacuum on a large table
> will not cause a complete cache eviction.
I think what we really need is a way to schedule VACUUM's I/O at a lower
priority than normal I/Os. Wouldn't be very portable :-( ... but if the
OS offers a facility for requesting this, it'd be worth experimenting
with.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Welty | 2003-08-20 22:07:39 | Re: move to usenet? |
| Previous Message | Dennis Gearon | 2003-08-20 21:58:03 | Re: move to usenet? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Karsten Hilbert | 2003-08-20 22:10:06 | Re: Buglist |
| Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2003-08-20 21:55:17 | Re: "SELECT IN" Still Broken in 7.4b |