On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 1:12 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2019-11-04 14:33:41 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > I've been wondering if the accounting system should consider the cost > > per tablespace when there's multiple tablespaces involved, instead of > > throttling the overall process without consideration for the > > per-tablespace utilization. > > This all seems like a feature proposal, or two, independent of the > patch/question at hand. I think there's a good argument to be had that > we should severely overhaul the current vacuum cost limiting - it's way > way too hard to understand the bandwidth that it's allowed to > consume. But unless one of the proposals makes that measurably harder or > easier, I think we don't gain anything by entangling an already complex > patchset with something new. >
+1. I think even if we want something related to per-tablespace costing for vacuum (parallel), it should be done as a separate patch. It is a whole new area where we need to define what is the appropriate way to achieve. It is going to change the current vacuum costing system in a big way which I don't think is reasonable to do as part of a parallel vacuum patch. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
