| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: cost based vacuum (parallel) |
| Date: | 2019-11-06 02:39:54 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+9e6cmNN3GUaWjy2bTM2SNMujt7-bwTAyTYd0JQFWSpg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 7:55 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-11-06 07:53:09 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > As per feedback in this thread, it seems that for now, it is better,
> > if we can allow a parallel vacuum only when I/O throttling is not
> > enabled. We can later extend it based on feedback from the field once
> > the feature starts getting used.
>
> That's not my read on this thread. I don't think we should introduce
> this feature without a solution for the throttling.
>
Okay, then I misunderstood your response to Jeff's email [1]. Anyway,
we have already explored two different approaches as mentioned in the
initial email which has somewhat similar results on initial tests.
So, we can explore more on those lines. Do you any preference or any
other idea?
[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20191104182829.57bkz64qn5k3uwc3%40alap3.anarazel.de
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2019-11-06 02:43:59 | Re: Keep compiler silence (clang 10, implicit conversion from 'long' to 'double' ) |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-11-06 02:37:36 | Re: pgbench - refactor init functions with buffers |