"Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm inclined to propose an even simpler algorithm in which every worker
>> acts alike;
> That is what I'm proposing except for one difference, when you catch up
> to an older worker, exit.
No, that's a bad idea, because it means that any large table starves
even-larger tables.
(Note: in all this I assume we're all using "size" as a shorthand for
some sort of priority metric that considers number of dirty tuples not
only size. We don't want every worker insisting on passing over every
small read-only table every time, for instance.)
regards, tom lane
