Tom Lane wrote:
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The proposal to save enough state to be able to resume a vacuum at
pretty much any point in it's cycle might work; we'd have to benchmark
it. With the default maintenance_work_mem of 128M it would mean writing
out 64M of state every minute on average, which is likely to take
several seconds to fsync (though, maybe we wouldn't need to fsync it...)
Which is exactly why we needn't bother benchmarking it. Even if it
weren't complex and unsafe, it will be a net loss when you consider the
fact that it adds I/O instead of removing it.
I'm not sure what you are saying here, are you now saying that partial
vacuum won't work for autovac? Or are you saying that saving state as
Jim is describing above won't work?
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
