| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| 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 14:43:16 |
| Message-ID: | 20618.1191508996@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> 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.
This is exceedingly Postgres-centric thinking. The lack of any other
backends does not mean that the system owner wants Postgres to take over
the machine.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-10-04 14:46:56 | Re: [HACKERS] Why does the sequence skip a number with generate_series? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-04 14:29:00 | Re: Connection Pools and DISCARD ALL |