> > Not sure what you mean by that, but it sounds like the behaviour of my AVD
> > (having it block until the vacuum command completes) is fine, and perhaps
> > preferrable.
>
> I can easily imagine larger systems with multiple CPUs and multiple disk
> and card bundles to support multiple databases. In this case, I have a
> hard time figuring out why you'd not want to allow multiple concurrent
> vacuums. I guess I can understand a recommendation of only allowing a
> single vacuum, however, should it be mandated that AVD will ONLY be able
> to perform a single vacuum at a time?
Hmm.. CPU time (from what I've seen) isn't an issue. Strictly disk. The
big problem with multiple vacuums is determining which tables are in
common areas.
Perhaps a more appropriate rule would be 1 AVD per tablespace? Since
PostgreSQL only has a single tablespace at the moment....
--
Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca>
PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc
