| From: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)surnet(dot)cl>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Autovacuum in the backend |
| Date: | 2005-06-16 04:58:01 |
| Message-ID: | 42B106D9.1000405@zeut.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Neil Conway wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>> One issue I do have to deal with right now is how many autovacuum
>> processes do we want to be running. The current approach is to have one
>> autovacuum process. Two possible options would be to have one per
>> database, and one per tablespace. What do people think?
>
>
> Why do we need more than one pg_autovacuum process? (Note that this
> need not necessarily imply only one concurrent VACUUM, as you can use
> non-blocking connections in libpq.)
Part of the backend integration work Alvaro is doing is teaching
autovacuum to do it's work without libpq.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-06-16 04:59:19 | Re: [HACKERS] INHERITS and planning |
| Previous Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2005-06-16 04:56:36 | Re: Autovacuum in the backend |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-06-16 04:59:19 | Re: [HACKERS] INHERITS and planning |
| Previous Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2005-06-16 04:56:36 | Re: Autovacuum in the backend |