| From: | Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Deadline-Based Vacuum Delay |
| Date: | 2007-01-03 15:26:34 |
| Message-ID: | 92B73DA8-A02A-4FE3-B0F3-D276A3C54F5C@decibel.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Dec 29, 2006, at 12:30 PM, Chris Browne wrote:
> How you get the work to spread consistently across 6 hours is a
> challenge; personally, my preference would generally be to try to get
> the work done ASAP, so the goal seems a tad off to me...
Agreed. If we're going to monkey with automatically setting vacuum
cost GUCs I'd *much* rather work towards having some kind of I/O
priority scheme; that would allow vacuum to use as much I/O as it
wants, provided nothing else in the system needs it.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2007-01-03 15:33:35 | Re: effective_cache_size vs units |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2007-01-03 15:17:16 | Re: TODO: GNU TLS |