| From: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1 |
| Date: | 2005-04-30 04:06:45 |
| Message-ID: | 42730455.6020908@zeut.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Christopher Browne wrote:
>
>> Some reasonable approximations might include:
>> - How much disk I/O was recorded in the last 60 seconds?
>> - How many application transactions (e.g. - invoices or such) were
>> issued in the last 60 seconds (monitoring a sequence could be
>> good enough).
>
>
> Some way of doing a 'partial vacuum' would be nice ... where a VACUUM
> could stop after it processed those '10 elderly tuples' and on the
> next pass, resume from that point instead of starting from the
> beginning again ...
That is sorta what the vacuum delay settings accomplish.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-30 04:12:48 | Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-04-30 03:42:43 | Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2005-04-30 08:03:06 | Re: pg_restore -F bug |
| Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2005-04-30 01:57:23 | Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1 |