| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joao Ferreira gmail <joao(dot)miguel(dot)c(dot)ferreira(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: running two instances of pg |
| Date: | 2008-07-07 14:40:23 |
| Message-ID: | 9834.1215441623@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Joao Ferreira gmail <joao(dot)miguel(dot)c(dot)ferreira(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> So we are considereing separating these two, in order to use 2 diferent
> pg instances. One of the instances will be reniced down in order to
> prevent user access failure during vacuuming and re-indexing operations
> (currently, when we perform database maintenance (we are now at 2Giga
> and growing), several other user related services become inoperative,
> during the maintenance operation, but if we renice the postmaster, the
> users dont experience such a severe service outage)
Have you experimented with the vacuum cost delay settings, instead?
"renice" is not a very good tool for controlling I/O demands.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ivan Sergio Borgonovo | 2008-07-07 14:47:41 | importing data via SQL statements and different column names |
| Previous Message | Joao Ferreira gmail | 2008-07-07 14:28:25 | running two instances of pg |