From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Still recommending daily vacuum... |
Date: | 2007-07-03 20:36:23 |
Message-ID: | 13153.1183494983@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Jim C. Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 11:19:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Is there a reason to say anything beyond "use autovac"?
> There is; I know that things like web session tables aren't handled very
> well by autovacuum if there are any moderately large tables (anything
> that will take more than a few minutes to vacuum). Eventually we should
> be able to accommodate that case with multiple workers, but we'll need a
> mechanism to ensure that at least one worker doesn't get tied up in
> large vacuums.
And which part of that do you think isn't resolved in 8.3?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-07-03 20:46:10 | Re: Still recommending daily vacuum... |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2007-07-03 20:13:40 | Re: Still recommending daily vacuum... |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-07-03 20:46:10 | Re: Still recommending daily vacuum... |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2007-07-03 20:13:40 | Re: Still recommending daily vacuum... |