| From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(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 08:21:15 |
| Message-ID: | CAD21AoCTbwOmXkSszbUXEjNyxvmz4JX9ktK=zt-p54tnGi7-TA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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. Is it right?
Regards,
---
Masahiko Sawada http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2019-11-04 08:26:07 | Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-11-04 07:53:18 | Re: Refactor parse analysis of EXECUTE command |