What I am pointing out is that this is all the same issue, and that
solutions to the "we can't do priorities because of locking issues" have
existed for many years. I/O is the same as processors, it is a resource
that needs managing. So the intelligence can be made to exist, it just
needs to be made.
Now onto other questions: can vacuuming be done without locks? Can it be
done in parts (ie, lock only a bit)? Can the I/O be better managed? Is
this a general model that would work well?
I have plenty of queries that I would love to run on a "as the system
allows" basis, or on a "keep a bit of spare cycles or I/O for the
important stuff", but which I cannot specify. So a vote from me for any
mechanism that allows priorities to be specified. If this is a desired
feature, then comes the hard part of what is feasible, what can be done in
a reasonable amount of time, and of doing it.
Regards!
Ed
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:05:28PM -0400, Edmund Dengler wrote:
> > Well, if they are locked waiting on vacuum, then vacuum should upgrade
> > it's priority to the highest waiting process (priority inheritance).
> > This way, vacuum will be running at a priority level equivalent to who is
> > waiting on it.
>
> Right, but all that intelligence is something that isn't in there
> now. And anyway, the real issue is I/O, not processor.
>
> A
>
> --
> ----
> Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
> Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
> <andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8
> +1 416 646 3304 x110
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
>
