Re: Feedback on getting rid of VACUUM FULL

On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 10:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 09:45 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> Making the code more complicated so that it's easier to tune something
> >> that isn't very hard to tune anyway doesn't seem like a good
> >> trade-off.
>
> > I think that just making sure that pessimal cases don't happen should be
> > enough, maybe just check for too-much-time-in-transaction after each N
> > pages touched.
>
> If people think that a runtime limit is the most natural way to control
> this, I don't see a reason not to do it that way. I would envision
> checking the elapsed time once per page or few pages; shouldn't be a
> huge amount of effort or complication ...

Yes, I think time is the most natural way. Currently, VACUUM provides an
effective max impact time since it locks one block at any one time and
therefore limits how long users need wait for it. We need a way to
specify the maximum time we are prepared for an update/delete
transaction to wait when this utility runs (in ms). That way we can
easily assess the impact on transactional systems.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com