On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote:
I'm not convinced using a ring buffer is necessarily that bad even if
you want to vacuum as fast as possible. The reason we use a small ring
buffer is to avoid poisoning the entire cache with vacuum pages, not
to throttle the
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Reviving a very old thread, because I've run into the issue again.
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
If I
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure what the right thing to do here is, but I definitely
agree there's a problem. There are definitely cases where people want
or indeed need to vacuum as fast as possible, and using a small ring
buffer is not
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote:
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure what the right thing to do here is, but I definitely
agree there's a problem. There are definitely cases where people want
or indeed need to
Reviving a very old thread, because I've run into the issue again.
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
If I invoke vacuum manually and do so with VacuumCostDelay == 0, I
have
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
If I invoke vacuum manually and do so with VacuumCostDelay == 0, I
have basically declared my intentions to get this pain over with as
fast as possible even if it might interfere with other processes.
Under that
If I invoke vacuum manually and do so with VacuumCostDelay == 0, I
have basically declared my intentions to get this pain over with as
fast as possible even if it might interfere with other processes.
Under that condition, shouldn't it use BAS_BULKWRITE rather than
BAS_VACUUM? The smaller ring
