From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgsql-server: Vacuum delay activated by default. |
Date: | 2004-08-07 19:20:34 |
Message-ID: | 20040807161929.D1212@ganymede.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers |
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>> Just curious, but isn't this one of the key points about pg_autovacuum in
>> the first place? So that you vacuum what needs to be vacuum'd, and not
>> *everything* ... ? Shouldn't the answer to the 'bandwidth issue' change
>> to 'you should install/use pg_autovacuum'?
>
> No, not really, but I think it's much more likely that you'd want to
> enable vacuum delay for autovacuum-commanded vacuums than vacuums
> commanded interactively. Or, if you still prefer the old-tech way of
> performing routine vacuums from a cron script, you'd probably turn on
> vacuum delay in that cron script.
>
> I think we *should* add to autovacuum a parameter to let it set
> vacuum_delay for its vacuums, and maybe even default to having it on.
> But I'm unconvinced we want any delay as the global default.
how about having it as part of the SQL?
VACUUM ANALYZE DELAY;
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-08-07 19:26:32 | Re: pgsql-server: Vacuum delay activated by default. |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-08-07 19:14:45 | pgsql-server: Improve markup a little. |