| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)surnet(dot)cl> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Autovacuum in the backend |
| Date: | 2005-06-16 04:04:33 |
| Message-ID: | 200506152104.34210.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro,
> One issue I do have to deal with right now is how many autovacuum
> processes do we want to be running. The current approach is to have one
> autovacuum process. Two possible options would be to have one per
> database, and one per tablespace. What do people think?
I'd vote for one, period, for the cluster, if you can manage that. Let's
stick to simple for now. Most users have their database on a single disk or
array, so multiple concurrent vacuums will compete for I/O regardless of
different databases.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-06-16 04:07:30 | Re: Autovacuum in the backend |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-06-16 03:57:45 | Re: Autovacuum in the backend |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-06-16 04:07:30 | Re: Autovacuum in the backend |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-06-16 03:57:45 | Re: Autovacuum in the backend |