Jan Wieck wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Jan Wieck wrote:
> >> Attached is a corrected version that solves the query cancel problem by
> >> not napping any more and going full speed as soon as any signal is
> >> pending. If nobody objects, I'm going to commit this tomorrow.
> >
> > Jan, three questions. First, is this useful now that we have the new
> > cache replacement code, second, do we need this many parameters (can't
> > any of them be autotuned), and third, what about documentation?
> >
>
> You mean if stopping to nap is useful when a signal is pending or if
> napping during vacuum itself is useful at all?
>
> I am willing to make it all self tuning and automagic. Just tell me how.
I was hoping you would have some ideas. :-)
I guess my question is that now that we have the new cache replacement
policy, is the vacuum delay worth while. I looked at
http://developer.postgresql.org/~wieck/vacuum_cost/ and does seem
useful.
> Documentation is missing so far. Will work on that.
Cool.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
