On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com> writes:
>> The case I'm looking at is a large table which requires a lazy vacuum,
>> and a zero vacuum cost delay would cause too much I/O. Yet, this
>> table has enough insert/delete activity during a vacuum, that it
>> requires a fairly frequent analysis to maintain proper plans. I
>> patched as mentioned above and didn't run across any unexpected
>> issues; the only one expected was that mentioned by Alvaro.
>
> I don't find this a compelling argument, at least not without proof that
> the various vacuum-improvement projects already on the radar screen
> (DSM-driven vacuum, etc) aren't going to fix your problem.
Is DSM going to be in 8.4? The last I had heard, DSM+related
improvements weren't close to being guaranteed for this release. If
it doesn't make it, waiting another year and a half for something
easily fixed would be fairly unacceptable. Should I provide a patch
in the event that DSM doesn't make it?
-Jonah
