On 16.11.2010 18:12, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Thoughts?
Sounds reasonable, but you know what would be even better? Use less memory in vacuum, so that it doesn't become an issue to begin with. There was some discussion on that back in 2007 (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-02/msg01814.php). That seems like low-hanging fruit, it should be simple to switch to more compact representation. I believe you could easily more than half the memory consumption in typical scenarios.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
