On Friday, January 13, 2012 10:50:32 PM Josh Berkus wrote: > Hackers, > > It occurs to me that I would find it quite personally useful if the > vacuumdb utility was multiprocess capable. > > For example, just today I needed to manually analyze a database with > over 500 tables, on a server with 24 cores. And I needed to know when > the analyze was done, because it was part of a downtime. I had to > resort to a python script. > > I'm picturing doing this in the simplest way possible: get the list of > tables and indexes, divide them by the number of processes, and give > each child process its own list. That doesn't sound like a good idea. Its way too likely that you will end up with one backend doing all the work because it got some big tables.
I don't think this task deserves using threads or subprocesses. Multiple connections from one process seems way more sensible and mostly avoids the above problem. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
