Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...)

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
Искать
От
Rod Taylor
Тема
Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...)
Дата
Msg-id
1039531335.18314.5.camel@jester
Ответ на
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...) "Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net>
Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...) "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in>
> > 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 

PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления
От: Dan Langille
Дата:
От: Shridhar Daithankar
Дата:
FAQ