On Dec 29, 2006, at 12:30 PM, Chris Browne wrote:
> How you get the work to spread consistently across 6 hours is a
> challenge; personally, my preference would generally be to try to get
> the work done ASAP, so the goal seems a tad off to me...

Agreed. If we're going to monkey with automatically setting vacuum  
cost GUCs I'd *much* rather work towards having some kind of I/O  
priority scheme; that would allow vacuum to use as much I/O as it  
wants, provided nothing else in the system needs it.
--
Jim Nasby                                            jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

In response to

• Re: Deadline-Based Vacuum Delay at 2006-12-29 17:30:28 from Chris Browne

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Jim Nasby	Date: 2007-01-03 15:33:35
	Subject: Re: effective_cache_size vs units
Previous:	From: Stephen Frost	Date: 2007-01-03 15:17:16
	Subject: Re: TODO: GNU TLS