Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Deadline-Based Vacuum Delay

From: Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
To: Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Deadline-Based Vacuum Delay
Date: 2007-01-03 15:26:34
Message-ID: 92B73DA8-A02A-4FE3-B0F3-D276A3C54F5C@decibel.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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

pgsql-hackers by date

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

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group