Re: Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview
Date
Msg-id 21418.1172597010@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview  ("Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@tocr.com>)
Responses Re: Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview  ("Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@tocr.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> It occurs to me that we may be thinking about this the wrong way
>> entirely.  Perhaps a more useful answer to the problem of using a
>> defined maintenance window is to allow VACUUM to respond to changes in
>> the vacuum cost delay settings on-the-fly.  So when your window closes,
>> you don't abandon your work so far, you just throttle your I/O rate back
>> to whatever's considered acceptable for daytime vacuuming.

> I thought we already did that?

No, we only react to SIGHUP when idle.  I think that's a good policy for
standard backends, but for autovacuum it might be appropriate to check
more often.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: Seeking Google SoC Mentors
Next
From: "Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
Subject: Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2