"Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> writes: > interesting thought. I think this boils down to how many knobs do we > need to put on this system. It might make sense to say allow upto X > concurrent vacuums, a 4 processor system might handle 4 concurrent > vacuums very well.
This is almost certainly a bad idea. vacuum is not very processor-intensive, but it is disk-intensive. Multiple vacuums running at once will suck more disk bandwidth than is appropriate for a "background" operation, no matter how sexy your CPU is. I can't see any reason to allow more than one auto-scheduled vacuum at a time.