On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 05:58:32PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > the LRU chain but rather at it's end? This way a vacuum on a large table
> > will not cause a complete cache eviction.
>
> I think what we really need is a way to schedule VACUUM's I/O at a lower
> priority than normal I/Os. Wouldn't be very portable :-( ... but if the
Hey, they both sounds like nifty ideas to me! The portability sure
worries me, though, on that I/O trick. Still, Oracle (f'rinstance)
made all kinds of optimisations for Sun (and conversely) partly
because, I expect, that's where a lot of their users were, and the
performance or reliability gains were significant. Whether that is
worth doing for PostgreSQL, when there are probably lots of other
targets to aim at, is an open question.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
