"Matthew T. O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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?
No, we only react to SIGHUP when idle. I think that's a good policy for
standard backends, but for autovacuum it might be appropriate to check
more often.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
