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

From Masahiko Sawada
Subject Re: cost based vacuum (parallel)
Date
Msg-id CAD21AoCTbwOmXkSszbUXEjNyxvmz4JX9ktK=zt-p54tnGi7-TA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to cost based vacuum (parallel)  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: cost based vacuum (parallel)  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
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. Is it right?

Regards,

---
Masahiko Sawada      http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Refactor parse analysis of EXECUTE command
Next
From: Dilip Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum