On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 12:00:41AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > The advantage to keying this to autovac_naptime is that it means we
> > don't need another GUC, but after I suggested that before I realized
> > that's probably not the best idea. For example, I've seen clusters that
> > are running dozens-hundreds of databases; in that environment you really
> > need to turn naptime way down (to like a second). In that case you
> > wouldn't want to key to naptime.
> Actually, I've been thinking that it would be a good idea to change the
> semantics of autovacuum_naptime so that it means the average time to
> start a worker in any given database.  That way, the time between
> autovac runs is not dependent on the number of databases you have.

Hrm... how would that work?

BTW, another thought is to only sleep if you've scanned through every
database and found nothing to do.
Jim Nasby                                            [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not

Reply via email to