Re: Deadline-Based Vacuum Delay - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jim Nasby
Subject Re: Deadline-Based Vacuum Delay
Date
Msg-id 92B73DA8-A02A-4FE3-B0F3-D276A3C54F5C@decibel.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Deadline-Based Vacuum Delay  (Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Dec 29, 2006, at 12:30 PM, Chris Browne wrote:
> How you get the work to spread consistently across 6 hours is a
> challenge; personally, my preference would generally be to try to get
> the work done ASAP, so the goal seems a tad off to me...

Agreed. If we're going to monkey with automatically setting vacuum  
cost GUCs I'd *much* rather work towards having some kind of I/O  
priority scheme; that would allow vacuum to use as much I/O as it  
wants, provided nothing else in the system needs it.
--
Jim Nasby                                            jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: Added the word TODO in comments
Next
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: effective_cache_size vs units