Greg Smith wrote: > > Let's break this down into individual parts: Great summary.
> 4) Is vacuuming a challenging I/O demand? Quite. > > Add all this up, and that fact that you're satisfied with how nice has > worked successfully for you doesn't have to conflict with an opinion > that it's not the best approach for controlling vacuuming. I just > wouldn't extrapolate your experience too far here. I wasn't claiming it's a the best approach for vacuuming. >From my first posting in this thread I've been agreeing that vacuum_cost_delay is the better tool for handling vacuum. Just that the original poster also asked for a way of setting priorities so I pointed him to one. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
