| From: | Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>, "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in, PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...) |
| Date: | 2002-12-10 22:18:49 |
| Message-ID: | 1039558729.4593.71.camel@mouse.copelandconsulting.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 13:09, scott.marlowe wrote:
> On 10 Dec 2002, Rod Taylor wrote:
> > Perhaps a more appropriate rule would be 1 AVD per tablespace? Since
> > PostgreSQL only has a single tablespace at the moment....
>
> But Postgresql can already place different databases on different data
> stores. I.e. initlocation and all. If someone was using multiple SCSI
> cards with multiple JBOD or RAID boxes hanging off of a box, they would
> have the same thing, effectively, that you are talking about.
>
> So, someone out there may well be able to use a multiple process AVD right
> now. Imagine m databases on n different drive sets for large production
> databases.
That's right. I always forget about that. So, it seems, regardless of
the namespace effort, we shouldn't be limiting the number of concurrent
AVD's.
--
Greg Copeland <greg(at)copelandconsulting(dot)net>
Copeland Computer Consulting
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2002-12-10 22:23:49 | Re: Problems with ALTER DOMAIN patch |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-12-10 21:51:45 | INFORMATION_SCHEMA |