From: | Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Autovacuum Improvements |
Date: | 2006-12-19 17:55:12 |
Message-ID: | 604prr3h4v.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
matthew(at)zeut(dot)net ("Matthew O'Connor") writes:
> 2) Once we can have multiple autovacuum workers: Create the concept of
> hot tables that require more attention and should never be ignored for
> more that X minutes, perhaps have one "autovacuum worker" per hot
> table? (What do people think of this?)
One worker per "hot table" seems like overkill to me; you could chew
up a lot of connections that way, which could be a DOS.
That you have a "foot gun" is guaranteed; I think I'd rather that it
come in the form that choosing the "hot list" badly hurts the rate of
vacuuming than that we have a potential to chew up numbers of
connections (which is a relatively non-renewable resource).
--
(format nil "~S(at)~S" "cbbrowne" "cbbrowne.com")
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/
There are no "civil aviation for dummies" books out there and most of
you would probably be scared and spend a lot of your time looking up
if there was one. :-) -- Jordan Hubbard in c.u.b.f.m
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tony Caduto | 2006-12-19 17:57:35 | Re: Creating an Independant Application |
Previous Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2006-12-19 17:54:14 | Re: out of memory woes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-12-19 18:02:57 | Re: Companies Contributing to Open Source |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-12-19 17:43:58 | Re: Sync Scan update |