Tom Lane wrote:
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 10:37 -0600, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
... The idea would be to give vacuum a target run time, and it
would monitor how much time it had remaining, taking into account how
long it should take to scan the indexes based on how long it's been
taking to scan the heap. When the amount of time left becomes less than
the estimate of the amount of time required to scan the indexes (and
clean the heap), you stop the heap scan and start scanning indexes.

I do like this idea, but it also seems easy to calculate that bit
yourself. Run VACUUM, after X minutes issue stop_vacuum() and see how
long it takes to finish. Adjust X until you have it right.

One problem with it is that a too-small target would result in vacuum
proceeding to scan indexes after having accumulated only a few dead
tuples, resulting in increases (potentially enormous ones) in the total
work needed to vacuum the table completely.

I think it's sufficient to have two cases: abort now, and restart from
the last cycle-completion point next time (this would basically just be
SIGINT); or set a flag to stop at the next cycle-completion point.

It occurs to me that we may be thinking about this the wrong way
entirely.  Perhaps a more useful answer to the problem of using a
defined maintenance window is to allow VACUUM to respond to changes in
the vacuum cost delay settings on-the-fly.  So when your window closes,
you don't abandon your work so far, you just throttle your I/O rate back
to whatever's considered acceptable for daytime vacuuming.

I thought we already did that? Which BTW was part of my plan on how to deal with a vacuum that is still running after it's maintenance window has expired.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
      subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
      message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to