Re: Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview

"Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@tocr.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> It occurs to me that we may be thinking about this the wrong way
>> entirely.  Perhaps a more useful answer to the problem of using a
>> defined maintenance window is to allow VACUUM to respond to changes in
>> the vacuum cost delay settings on-the-fly.  So when your window closes,
>> you don't abandon your work so far, you just throttle your I/O rate back
>> to whatever's considered acceptable for daytime vacuuming.

> I thought we already did that?

No, we only react to SIGHUP when idle.  I think that's a good policy for
standard backends, but for autovacuum it might be appropriate to check
more often.
        regards, tom lane