Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Rod Taylor
Subject Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...)
Date
Msg-id 1039543665.18314.13.camel@jester
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...)  (Greg Copeland <greg@CopelandConsulting.Net>)
List pgsql-hackers
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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Problems with ALTER DOMAIN patch
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Let's create a release team