From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: autovacuum next steps |
Date: | 2007-02-16 23:53:05 |
Message-ID: | 12902.1171669985@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Each worker, including the initial one, starts vacuuming tables
> according to pgstat data. They recheck the pgstat data after finishing
> each table, so that a table vacuumed by another worker is not processed
> twice (maybe problematic: a table with high update rate may be vacuumed
> more than once. Maybe this is a feature not a bug).
How are you going to make that work without race conditions? ISTM
practically guaranteed that all the workers will try to vacuum the same
table.
> Once autovacuum_naptime has passed, if the workers have not finished
> yet, the launcher wants to vacuum another database.
This seems a rather strange design, as it will encourage concentrations
of workers in a single database. Wouldn't it be better to spread them
out among multiple databases by default?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2007-02-17 00:13:51 | Re: Avg performance for int8/numeric |
Previous Message | FAST PostgreSQL | 2007-02-16 23:34:59 | WIP patch - INSERT-able log statements |