| From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: cost based vacuum (parallel) |
| Date: | 2019-11-04 17:59:02 |
| Message-ID: | CAMkU=1wTOp17UFa5yBbUpU8XouhK78YxJEYu7mGeZPgSUeK3kQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 1:54 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> For parallel vacuum [1], we were discussing what is the best way to
> divide the cost among parallel workers but we didn't get many inputs
> apart from people who are very actively involved in patch development.
> I feel that we need some more inputs before we finalize anything, so
> starting a new thread.
>
Maybe a I just don't have experience in the type of system that parallel
vacuum is needed for, but if there is any meaningful IO throttling which is
active, then what is the point of doing the vacuum in parallel in the first
place?
Cheers,
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-11-04 18:00:28 | Re: [PATCH] Include triggers in EXPLAIN |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-11-04 17:53:48 | Re: Keep compiler silence (clang 10, implicit conversion from 'long' to 'double' ) |