Re: RFC: changing autovacuum_naptime semantics
| От | Galy Lee |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: RFC: changing autovacuum_naptime semantics |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 45F10198.3080506@oss.ntt.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: RFC: changing autovacuum_naptime semantics (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > Er, why not just finish out the scan at the reduced I/O rate? Any sort Sometimes, you may need to vacuum large table in maintenance window and hot table in the service time. If vacuum for hot table does not eat two much foreground resource, then you can vacuum large table with a lower IO rate outside maintenance window; but if vacuum for hot table is overeating the system resource, then launcher had better to stop the long running vacuum outside maintenance window. But I am not insisting on the stop-start feature at this moment. Changing the cost delay dynamically sounds more reasonable. We can use it to balance total I/O of workers in service time or maintenance time. It is not so difficult to achieve this by leveraging the share memory of autovacuum. Best Regards Galy Lee
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: