From: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Postgres Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Concurrent VACUUM and ANALYZE |
Date: | 2008-07-22 02:51:33 |
Message-ID: | 36e682920807211951l231a4824gbe4c9a0d7e30efaf@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> The case I'm looking at is a large table which requires a lazy vacuum,
>> and a zero vacuum cost delay would cause too much I/O. Yet, this
>> table has enough insert/delete activity during a vacuum, that it
>> requires a fairly frequent analysis to maintain proper plans. I
>> patched as mentioned above and didn't run across any unexpected
>> issues; the only one expected was that mentioned by Alvaro.
>
> I don't find this a compelling argument, at least not without proof that
> the various vacuum-improvement projects already on the radar screen
> (DSM-driven vacuum, etc) aren't going to fix your problem.
Is DSM going to be in 8.4? The last I had heard, DSM+related
improvements weren't close to being guaranteed for this release. If
it doesn't make it, waiting another year and a half for something
easily fixed would be fairly unacceptable. Should I provide a patch
in the event that DSM doesn't make it?
-Jonah
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Owen Hartnett | 2008-07-22 03:53:19 | Re: Schema-qualified statements in pg_dump output |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-07-22 02:19:21 | Re: Concurrent VACUUM and ANALYZE |