Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher
Date
Msg-id 1191508072.4223.138.camel@ebony.site
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 11:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:

> In any case, this would still only fix things for pg_restore, and I
> remain concerned that people will gripe about autovacuum blocking
> locks.  The idea of kicking autovac off tables remains probably more
> interesting in the long run.

Yes, sounds good.

I'd also like to see vacuum_delay_point() do a test against
CountActiveBackends() to see if anything else is running. If there all
non-autovac processes are idle or waiting, then we should skip the delay
point, this time only. That way a VACUUM can go at full speed on an idle
system and slow down when people get active again. It will also help
when people issue a DDL statement against a table that is currently
being vacuumed. I've got a patch worked out to do this.

--  Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Shane Ambler
Date:
Subject: Re: [SQL] Why does the sequence skip a number with generate_series?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Connection Pools and DISCARD ALL