Re: Autovacuum loose ends

From: Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Autovacuum loose ends
Date: 2005-07-16 22:32:28
Message-ID: 42D98AFC.6050808@cheapcomplexdevices.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> ISTM the point of the delay parameters
> for autovac is to put a lid on its impact on interactive response. Seen
> in that light, you do not care exactly which table it's hitting at the
> moment.

Unless the table in question takes a big lock when it's VACUUMed
like tables with GiST indexes do today.

Slowing down one of those vacuums on a larger table has a huge
impact on interactive responses.

With GiST indexes becoming concurrent I assume Vacuum won't lock
anymore on my tables; but I don't know if there are other index
types or condition that might make vacuums take out similar
table-wide locks.

Ron

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Brown 2005-07-17 01:35:16 Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-07-16 18:06:07 Re: [HACKERS] 4 pgcrypto regressions failures - 1 unsolved

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2005-07-17 04:13:05 Re: Interval->day patch
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2005-07-16 18:33:22 Re: fixing REL7_3_STABLE build issues