Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2

"Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:

> Greg Stark and Matthew O'Connor say that we're misdirected in having
> more than one worker per tablespace.  I say we're not :-)  

I did say that. But your comment about using a high cost_delay was fairly
convincing too. It would be a simpler design and I think you're right. As long
as raise both cost_delay and cost_limit by enough you should get pretty much
the same sequential i/o rate and not step on each others toes too much.

--  Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com