Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Well, that's a fair point, but I don't think it has anything to do with
>> Josh's complaint --- which AFAICT is about imposed load, not about
>> failure to vacuum things that need vacuumed.
> I think it's got everything to do with it. Josh could fix his problem
> by increasing the cost limit and/or reducing the cost delay, but if he
> did that then his database would get bloated...
Josh hasn't actually explained what his problem is, nor what if any
adjustments he made to try to ameliorate it. In the absence of data
I refuse to rule out misconfiguration. But, again, to the extent that
he's given us any info at all, it seemed to be a complaint about
oversaturated I/O at max load, *not* about inability to complete
vacuuming tasks as needed. You are inventing problem details to fit
your solution.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
