Re: VACUUM DELAY

From: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
To: Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: VACUUM DELAY
Date: 2004-08-09 15:36:48
Message-ID: 41179A10.1030304@Yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 8/9/2004 7:19 AM, Gaetano Mendola wrote:

> Hi all,
> I have seen the big debat about to have the delay
> off or on by default.
>
> Why not enable it by default and introduce a new
> parameter to vacuum command itself ? Something like:
>
>
> VACUUM .... WITH DELAY 100;

It's not just one parameter to tune here. It is a set of parameters that
all together need to be viewed as a whole. The slowdown will be affected
by the other parameters as well, so turning the millisecond knob only is
not even half of the story.

Setting the delay to zero simply disables the whole feature at runtime.
That is why this discussion was using the delay parameter as a synonym
for enabling/disabling the feature by default.

Jan

>
>
> this will permit to change easilly the delay in the maintainance
> scripts.
>
>
>
> Regards
> Gaetano Mendola
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Treat 2004-08-09 15:48:42 lpthread errors while compiling 8.0beta
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-08-09 15:03:22 Re: Analyze using savepoints?