| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: cost based vacuum (parallel) |
| Date: | 2019-11-04 10:26:00 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LB0CT=7NhS3ocpRYNQKd39YYPXVo4LjtfWG9D5eUQzWQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 1:51 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 3:54 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > I think approach-2 is better in throttling the system as it doesn't
> > have the drawback of the first approach, but it might be a bit tricky
> > to implement.
>
> I might be missing something but I think that there could be the
> drawback of the approach-1 even on approach-2 depending on index pages
> loaded on the shared buffer and the vacuum delay setting.
>
Can you be a bit more specific about this?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2019-11-04 10:35:29 | Re: cost based vacuum (parallel) |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-11-04 10:17:25 | Re: alternative to PG_CATCH |