Christopher Browne wrote:
> Seems to me that you could get ~80% of the way by having the simplest
> "2 queue" implementation, where tables with size < some threshold get
> thrown at the "little table" queue, and tables above that size go to
> the "big table" queue.
>
> That should keep any small tables from getting "vacuum-starved."
Hmm, would it make sense to keep 2 queues, one that goes through the
tables in smaller-to-larger order, and the other one in the reverse
direction?
I am currently writing a design on how to create "vacuum queues" but I'm
thinking that maybe it's getting too complex to handle, and a simple
idea like yours is enough (given sufficient polish).
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
