Kenneth Marshall wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 06:42:09PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Hold that thought! Read Heikki's Piggyback VACUUM idea on new thread...
>
> There may be other functions that could leverage a similar sort of
> infrastructure. For example, a long DB mining query could be registered
> with the system. Then as the pieces of the table/database are brought in
> to shared memory during the normal daily DB activity they can be acquired
> without forcing the DB to run a very I/O expensive query when waiting a
> bit for the results would be acceptable. As long as we are thinking
> piggyback.
Yeah, I had the same idea when we discussed synchronizing sequential
scans. The biggest difference is that with queries, there's often a user
waiting for the query to finish, but with vacuum we don't care so much
how long it takes.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
