Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)tocr(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Galy Lee <lee(dot)galy(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview
Date: 2007-02-27 17:23:30
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew(at)tocr(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> It occurs to me that we may be thinking about this the wrong way
>> entirely.  Perhaps a more useful answer to the problem of using a
>> defined maintenance window is to allow VACUUM to respond to changes in
>> the vacuum cost delay settings on-the-fly.  So when your window closes,
>> you don't abandon your work so far, you just throttle your I/O rate back
>> to whatever's considered acceptable for daytime vacuuming.

> I thought we already did that?

No, we only react to SIGHUP when idle.  I think that's a good policy for
standard backends, but for autovacuum it might be appropriate to check
more often.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2007-02-27 17:24:40
Subject: Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2007-02-27 17:23:22
Subject: Re: Seeking Google SoC Mentors

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group