Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...)
От | Rod Taylor |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1039531335.18314.5.camel@jester обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...) (Greg Copeland <greg@CopelandConsulting.Net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...)
Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...) Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> > 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. > > I can easily imagine larger systems with multiple CPUs and multiple disk > and card bundles to support multiple databases. In this case, I have a > hard time figuring out why you'd not want to allow multiple concurrent > vacuums. I guess I can understand a recommendation of only allowing a > single vacuum, however, should it be mandated that AVD will ONLY be able > to perform a single vacuum at a time? Hmm.. CPU time (from what I've seen) isn't an issue. Strictly disk. The big problem with multiple vacuums is determining which tables are in common areas. Perhaps a more appropriate rule would be 1 AVD per tablespace? Since PostgreSQL only has a single tablespace at the moment.... -- Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca> PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: