Greg Smith wrote:
>
> Let's break this down into individual parts:
Great summary.
> 4) Is vacuuming a challenging I/O demand? Quite.
>
> Add all this up, and that fact that you're satisfied with how nice has
> worked successfully for you doesn't have to conflict with an opinion
> that it's not the best approach for controlling vacuuming. I just
> wouldn't extrapolate your experience too far here.
I wasn't claiming it's a the best approach for vacuuming.
From my first posting in this thread I've been agreeing that
vacuum_cost_delay is the better tool for handling vacuum. Just
that the original poster also asked for a way of setting priorities
so I pointed him to one.