Jan Wieck wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Jan Wieck wrote:
> >> Attached is a corrected version that solves the query cancel problem by 
> >> not napping any more and going full speed as soon as any signal is 
> >> pending. If nobody objects, I'm going to commit this tomorrow.
> > 
> > Jan, three questions.  First, is this useful now that we have the new
> > cache replacement code, second, do we need this many parameters (can't
> > any of them be autotuned), and third, what about documentation?
> > 
> You mean if stopping to nap is useful when a signal is pending or if 
> napping during vacuum itself is useful at all?
> I am willing to make it all self tuning and automagic. Just tell me how.

I was hoping you would have some ideas.  :-)

I guess my question is that now that we have the new cache replacement
policy, is the vacuum delay worth while.  I looked at
http://developer.postgresql.org/~wieck/vacuum_cost/ and does seem

> Documentation is missing so far. Will work on that.


  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

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

Reply via email to