| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2 |
| Date: | 2007-02-21 22:50:02 |
| Message-ID: | 87r6sjnn1h.fsf@stark.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Greg Stark and Matthew O'Connor say that we're misdirected in having
> more than one worker per tablespace. I say we're not :-)
I did say that. But your comment about using a high cost_delay was fairly
convincing too. It would be a simpler design and I think you're right. As long
as raise both cost_delay and cost_limit by enough you should get pretty much
the same sequential i/o rate and not step on each others toes too much.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-02-21 22:52:38 | Re: Status of Hierarchical Queries |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-02-21 22:47:57 | Re: [previously on HACKERS] "Compacting" a relation |