| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)surnet(dot)cl> |
| Cc: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Autovacuum in the backend |
| Date: | 2005-06-16 04:09:47 |
| Message-ID: | 42B0FB8B.1000600@samurai.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> One issue I do have to deal with right now is how many autovacuum
> processes do we want to be running. The current approach is to have one
> autovacuum process. Two possible options would be to have one per
> database, and one per tablespace. What do people think?
Why do we need more than one pg_autovacuum process? (Note that this need
not necessarily imply only one concurrent VACUUM, as you can use
non-blocking connections in libpq.)
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-06-16 04:14:10 | Re: Autovacuum in the backend |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2005-06-16 04:08:20 | Re: Autovacuum in the backend |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-06-16 04:14:10 | Re: Autovacuum in the backend |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2005-06-16 04:08:20 | Re: Autovacuum in the backend |