| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Galy Lee <lee(dot)galy(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: autovacuum next steps, take 3 |
| Date: | 2007-03-13 03:59:54 |
| Message-ID: | 23826.1173758394@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> In any case, I still haven't seen a good case made why a global work
>> queue will provide better behavior than each worker keeping a local
>> queue.
> If we have some external vacuum schedulers, we need to see and touch the
> content of work queue.
Who said anything about external schedulers? I remind you that this is
AUTOvacuum. If you want to implement manual scheduling you can still
use plain 'ol vacuum commands.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2007-03-13 04:25:22 | Re: autovacuum next steps, take 3 |
| Previous Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2007-03-13 03:44:05 | Re: autovacuum next steps, take 3 |