Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote: > >>Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>>Here is the autovacuum patch I am currently working with. This is > >>>basically the same as the previous patch; I have tweaked the database > >>>list management so that after a change in databases (say a new database > >>>is created or a database is dropped), the list is recomputed to account > >>>for the change, keeping the ordering of the previous list. > >>I'm interested in your multiworkers autovacuum proposal. > >> > >>I'm researching the impact of multiworkers with > >>autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit. > >>Autovacuum will consume server resources up to autovacuum_max_workers > >>times > >>as many as before. I think we might need to change the semantics of > >>autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit when we have multiworkers. > > > >Yes, that's correct. Per previous discussion, what I actually wanted to > >do was to create a GUC setting to simplify the whole thing, something > >like "autovacuum_max_mb_per_second" or "autovacuum_max_io_per_second". > >Then, have each worker use up to (max_per_second/active workers) as much > >IO resources. This way, the maximum use of IO resources by vacuum can > >be easily determined and limited by the DBA; certainly much simpler than > >the vacuum cost limiting feature. > > +1
One thing I forgot to mention is that this is unlikely to be implemented in 8.3. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---------------------------(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
