| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: cost based vacuum (parallel) |
| Date: | 2019-11-06 02:25:50 |
| Message-ID: | 20191106022550.zq7nai2ct2ashegq@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2019-11-06 07:53:09 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> As per feedback in this thread, it seems that for now, it is better,
> if we can allow a parallel vacuum only when I/O throttling is not
> enabled. We can later extend it based on feedback from the field once
> the feature starts getting used.
That's not my read on this thread. I don't think we should introduce
this feature without a solution for the throttling.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2019-11-06 02:31:03 | Re: pgbench - extend initialization phase control |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2019-11-06 02:23:09 | Re: cost based vacuum (parallel) |