Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 13:41 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
...
>> FWIW I disagree with cancelling just any autovac work automatically; in
>> my patch I'm only cancelling if it's analyze, on the grounds that if
>> you have really bad luck you can potentially lose a lot of work that
>> vacuum did. We can relax this restriction when we have cancellable
>> vacuum.
>
> That was requested by others, not myself, but I did agree with the
> conclusions. The other bad luck might be that you don't complete some
> critical piece of work in the available time window because an automated
> job kicked in.
Yeah, I thought we had agreed that we must cancel all auto
vacuum/analyzes, on the ground that foreground operations are usually
more important than maintenance tasks. Remember the complaint we already
had on hackers just after beta1: auto *vacuum* blocked a schema change,
and of course the user complained.
Best Regards
Michael Paesold
