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

From Jeff Janes
Subject Re: cost based vacuum (parallel)
Date
Msg-id CAMkU=1wTOp17UFa5yBbUpU8XouhK78YxJEYu7mGeZPgSUeK3kQ@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)  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Re: cost based vacuum (parallel)  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 1:54 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
For parallel vacuum [1], we were discussing what is the best way to
divide the cost among parallel workers but we didn't get many inputs
apart from people who are very actively involved in patch development.
I feel that we need some more inputs before we finalize anything, so
starting a new thread.

Maybe a I just don't have experience in the type of system that parallel vacuum is needed for, but if there is any meaningful IO throttling which is active, then what is the point of doing the vacuum in parallel in the first place?

Cheers,

Jeff

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Keep compiler silence (clang 10, implicit conversion from 'long' to 'double' )
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Include triggers in EXPLAIN