Re: cost based vacuum (parallel) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: cost based vacuum (parallel)
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1LB0CT=7NhS3ocpRYNQKd39YYPXVo4LjtfWG9D5eUQzWQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: cost based vacuum (parallel)  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: cost based vacuum (parallel)  (Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 1:51 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 3:54 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think approach-2 is better in throttling the system as it doesn't
> > have the drawback of the first approach, but it might be a bit tricky
> > to implement.
>
> I might be missing something but I think that there could be the
> drawback of the approach-1 even on approach-2 depending on index pages
> loaded on the shared buffer and the vacuum delay setting.
>

Can you be a bit more specific about this?

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: alternative to PG_CATCH
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: cost based vacuum (parallel)