On 25 March 2013 14:26, Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is pretty similar to the proposal Atri and I just recently made. > I am 100% in agreement that something must be done here...SELECT has > none of the i/o mitigation features that vacuum has. Is your idea > better? probably (although you have to give a small penalty for a user > facing tunable)
I was hoping this was a new idea entirely, since I was focusing on simply limiting foreground work rather than trying to work out how to optimise foreground work or work out how to make background tasks work better. > but we need testing against real world workloads, or > at least a much better synthetic one than pgbench, which per recent > discussions is probably the top objective of the project (a > performance farm, etc.). Self-tuning the background workloads needs lots of testing. Limiting foreground work needs very little, or none. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
