From: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_autovacuum next steps |
Date: | 2004-03-22 16:06:44 |
Message-ID: | 1079971604.2628.2.camel@zeudora.zeut.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 10:58, Tom Lane wrote:
> Lots of idle processes sitting around is right out, too. Remember that
> each one would eat a backend connection slot. I think we are going to
> have to limit this to *one* process at a time. What that probably means
> is that we successively launch an autovacuum process against each
> database, it does whatever seems appropriate in that database and then
> quits. We could manage this just like checkpoints are presently managed
> --- the only thing the postmaster has to know is the desired idle period
> between end of one autovacuum and start of the next.
Ok, I was thinking a similar thing (see my response to Gavin). So we
could have autovacuum fired off by the postmaster and it will connect to
databases as needed in a serial fashion.
Matthew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2004-03-22 16:22:20 | Re: pg_autovacuum next steps |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-22 15:58:42 | Re: pg_autovacuum next steps |