On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 12:00, Greg Copeland wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 08:42, Rod Taylor wrote:
> > > > 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....
>
> But tablespace is planned for 7.4 right? Since tablespace is supposed
> to go in for 7.4, I think you've hit the nail on the head. One AVD per
> tablespace sounds just right to me.
Planned if someone implements it and manages to have it committed prior
to release.
--
Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca>
PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc
