Re: Postgresql backend to perform vacuum automatically

From: mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Neil Padgett <npadgett(at)redhat(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Nicolas Bazin <nbazin(at)ingenico(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Postgresql backend to perform vacuum automatically
Date: 2002-03-05 21:56:24
Message-ID: 3C853F08.1F9CD7A0@mohawksoft.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Neil Padgett wrote:
> > On Tue, 2002-03-05 at 15:59, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > > > If they do not affect performance, then why have them off?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think Jan said 2-3%. If we can get autovacuum from it, it would be a
> > > > > win to keep it on all the time, perhaps.
> > > >
> > > > Assuming that the statistics get updated:
> > > >
> > > > How often should the sats table be queried?
> > > > What sort of configurability would be needed?
> > >
> > > You could wake up every few minutes and see how the values have changed.
> > > I don't remember if there is a way to clear that stats so you can see
> > > just the changes in the past five minutes. Vacuum the table that had
> > > activity.
> >
> > Ick -- polling. The statistics process should be able to wake somebody
> > up / notify the postmaster when the statistics change such that a vacuum
> > is required.
>
> Yes, that would tie that stats collector closer to auto-vacuum, but it
> certainly could be done.

Using an alert can be done, but polling is easier for a proof of concept. I
dont see too much difficulty there. We could use notify.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Eric Scroger 2002-03-05 22:27:59 A result was returned by the statement, when none was expected
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-03-05 21:54:47 Re: Postgresql backend to perform vacuum automatically