On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 07:19, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2002 at 7:59, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
>
> > On Thursday 28 November 2002 23:26, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > > On 28 Nov 2002 at 10:45, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > This is almost certainly a bad idea. vacuum is not very
> > > > processor-intensive, but it is disk-intensive. Multiple vacuums running
> > > > at once will suck more disk bandwidth than is appropriate for a
> > > > "background" operation, no matter how sexy your CPU is. I can't see
> > > > any reason to allow more than one auto-scheduled vacuum at a time.
> > > Hmm.. We would need to take care of that as well..
> > Not sure what you mean by that, but it sounds like the behaviour of my AVD
> > (having it block until the vacuum command completes) is fine, and perhaps
> > preferrable.
>
> Right.. But I will still keep option open for parallel vacuum which is most
> useful for reusing tuples in shared buffers.. And stale updated tuples are what
> causes performance drop in my experience..
>
> You know.. just enough rope to hang themselves..;-)
>
Right. This is exactly what I was thinking about. If someone shoots
their own foot off, that's their problem. The added flexibility seems
well worth it.
Greg