On Jan 3, 2008 7:39 PM, Alvaro Herrera <
alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
Sure, feel free to propose a specific ordering. I think you would need
to take table size into account too.
Thanks, i thought we were already taking the database size into account somewhat when we calculate the vacuum threshold by factoring in reltuples. My initial thought is that we already decide to vacuum a table if (vactuples > vacthresh). if we order the list by vacpriority where
vacpriority=vactuples - vacthresh
it would be reasonable start, without being too complicated , thoughts?
Something that's also important to fix while you're doing that is fixing
the "BUG" that is mentioned in the code that Simon griped about not long
ago.
OK, i will look what that is
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
--
Usama Munir Dar
http://www.linkedin.com/in/usamadarConsultant Architect
Cell:+92 321 5020666
Skype: usamadar