"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The vacuum-cost-limit issue may be sufficient reason to kill this idea; > not sure.
We already have a much higher cost for blocks that cause i/o than blocks which don't. I think if we had zero cost for blocks which don't cause i/o it would basically work unless the sleep time was so large that the other scans managed to cycle through the entire ring in that time. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(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
