From: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: VACUUM DELAY |
Date: | 2004-08-09 17:44:59 |
Message-ID: | 4117B81B.7080403@Yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8/9/2004 1:19 PM, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> Jan Wieck wrote:
>
>> On 8/9/2004 7:19 AM, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> I have seen the big debat about to have the delay
>>> off or on by default.
>>>
>>> Why not enable it by default and introduce a new
>>> parameter to vacuum command itself ? Something like:
>>>
>>>
>>> VACUUM .... WITH DELAY 100;
>>
>>
>> It's not just one parameter to tune here. It is a set of parameters that
>> all together need to be viewed as a whole. The slowdown will be affected
>> by the other parameters as well, so turning the millisecond knob only is
>> not even half of the story.
>
> So the other parameter will inserted in the new sintax too, I think is fundamental
> the ability of override this values during the vacuum call:
>
> VACUUM .... WITH DELAY 100 [ .... ];
You can do it right now.
set vacuum_cost_delay = 100;
vacuum analyze;
No need to panic.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | James William Pye | 2004-08-09 17:48:50 | Re: Postgres development model (was Re: CVS comment) |
Previous Message | James William Pye | 2004-08-09 17:32:06 | Re: SRFs ExecMakeTableFunctionResult |