| From: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 9.3 feature proposal: vacuumdb -j # |
| Date: | 2012-01-18 00:09:53 |
| Message-ID: | B6107D76-1824-400C-ADC9-F01AA1D19E7A@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jan 13, 2012, at 4:15 PM, Christopher Browne wrote:
> Have two logical tasks:
> a) A process that manages the list, and
> b) Child processes doing vacuums.
>
> Each time a child completes a table, it asks the parent for another one.
There is also a middle ground, because having the the scheduling process sounds like a lot more work than what Josh was proposing.
CREATE TEMP SEQUENCE s;
SELECT relname, s mod <number of backends> AS backend_number
FROM ( SELECT relname
FROM pg_class
ORDER BY relpages
);
Of course, having an actual scheduling process is most likely the most efficient.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2012-01-18 00:21:57 | Re: Group commit, revised |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2012-01-17 22:59:06 | Re: how to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint in CREATE TABLE |