Re: 9.3 feature proposal: vacuumdb -j #

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Susanne Ebrecht <susanne(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: 9.3 feature proposal: vacuumdb -j #
Date: 2012-01-17 14:04:47
Message-ID: 201201171504.47925.andres@anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tuesday, January 17, 2012 01:33:06 PM Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 17, 2012 01:18:53 PM Susanne Ebrecht wrote:
> >> I would prefer to have an option that the user is able to tell on how
> >> much cores it should be shared. Something like --share-cores=N.
> >
> > Uhm. -j # does exactly that or am I missing your point?
>
> not really.
>
> if you have 12 cores and you say -j 12 you would have 1 process per
> core, with Susanne's suggestion, AFAIUI, you can say -j 12
> --shared-cores=6... so you would only use 6 cores of the 12 and have 2
> processes per core
I don't really get what that should do. If vacuumdb itself is a limit in any
form in this we did something *very* wrong (in my opinion using processes for
this is pointless anyway. Using async queries seems to be much easier for this
special case. Especially for distributing individual commands.).
I don't really see how you could enforce sharing cores on the server side
(well, there are cpusets, but were sure not introduce usage of that just for
vacuumdb).

Andres

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2012-01-17 14:35:28 Re: Group commit, revised
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2012-01-17 13:55:47 Re: 9.3 feature proposal: vacuumdb -j #