| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher |
| Date: | 2007-10-04 14:27:52 |
| Message-ID: | 1191508072.4223.138.camel@ebony.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 11:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> In any case, this would still only fix things for pg_restore, and I
> remain concerned that people will gripe about autovacuum blocking
> locks. The idea of kicking autovac off tables remains probably more
> interesting in the long run.
Yes, sounds good.
I'd also like to see vacuum_delay_point() do a test against
CountActiveBackends() to see if anything else is running. If there all
non-autovac processes are idle or waiting, then we should skip the delay
point, this time only. That way a VACUUM can go at full speed on an idle
system and slow down when people get active again. It will also help
when people issue a DDL statement against a table that is currently
being vacuumed. I've got a patch worked out to do this.
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-04 14:29:00 | Re: Connection Pools and DISCARD ALL |
| Previous Message | Shane Ambler | 2007-10-04 14:25:14 | Re: Why does the sequence skip a number with generate_series? |