| From: | Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Some ideas about Vacuum |
| Date: | 2008-01-12 17:51:56 |
| Message-ID: | 4788FE3C.2080500@bluegap.ch |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, one of the principal arguments for having VACUUM at all is that it
> off-loads required maintenance effort from foreground transaction code
> paths.
Off-loading doesn't mean we don't have to do the work, so it's obviously
is a compromise.
AFAICT, having to write some DSM blocks from foreground transaction code
paths may well be worth it overall, if it saves VACUUM from doing much
more I/O.
Especially if the bgwriter can defer the I/O to after commit time (which
I'm thinking of as another form of off-loading work from foreground
transaction code).
Regards
Markus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2008-01-12 18:29:05 | Re: Postgresql Materialized views |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-01-12 17:47:30 | Re: Declarative partitioning grammar |