On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 07:19, Shridhar Daithankar wrote: > On 29 Nov 2002 at 7:59, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote: > > > On Thursday 28 November 2002 23:26, Shridhar Daithankar wrote: > > > On 28 Nov 2002 at 10:45, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > This is almost certainly a bad idea. vacuum is not very > > > > processor-intensive, but it is disk-intensive. Multiple vacuums running > > > > at once will suck more disk bandwidth than is appropriate for a > > > > "background" operation, no matter how sexy your CPU is. I can't see > > > > any reason to allow more than one auto-scheduled vacuum at a time. > > > Hmm.. We would need to take care of that as well.. > > Not sure what you mean by that, but it sounds like the behaviour of my AVD > > (having it block until the vacuum command completes) is fine, and perhaps > > preferrable. > > Right.. But I will still keep option open for parallel vacuum which is most > useful for reusing tuples in shared buffers.. And stale updated tuples are what > causes performance drop in my experience.. > > You know.. just enough rope to hang themselves..;-) >
Right. This is exactly what I was thinking about. If someone shoots their own foot off, that's their problem. The added flexibility seems well worth it. Greg ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
