Re: autovacuum next steps, take 3

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Galy Lee <lee(dot)galy(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: autovacuum next steps, take 3
Date: 2007-03-12 14:32:44
Message-ID: 15300.1173709964@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Galy Lee <lee(dot)galy(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> I am worrying about the worker-to-do-list in your proposal. I think
> worker isn't suitable to maintain any vacuum task list; instead
> it is better to maintain a unified vacuum task queue on autovacuum share
> memory.

Shared memory is fixed-size.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-03-12 14:36:50 Re: Bitmapscan changes
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-03-12 14:30:19 Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant