Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2

> Ron Mayer expressed the thought that we're complicating needlessly the
> UI for vacuum_delay, naptime, etc. He proposes that instead of having
> cost_delay etc, we have a mbytes_per_second parameter of some sort.
> This strikes me a good idea, but I think we could make that after this
> proposal is implemented. So this "take 2" could be implemented, and
> then we could switch the cost_delay stuff to using a MB/s kind of
> measurement somehow (he says waving his hands wildly).

vacuum should be a process with the least amount of voodoo. If we can
just have vacuum_delay and vacuum_threshold, where threshold allows an
arbitrary setting of how much bandwidth we will allot to the process,
then that is a beyond wonderful thing.

It is easy to determine how much IO you have, and what you can spare.

Joshua D. Drake

>
> Greg Stark and Matthew O'Connor say that we're misdirected in having
> more than one worker per tablespace. I say we're not :-) If we
> consider Ron Mayer's idea of measuring MB/s, but we do it per
> tablespace, then we would inflict the correct amount of vacuum pain to
> each tablespace, sleeping as appropriate. I think this would require
> workers of different databases to communicate what tablespaces they are
> using, so that all of them can utilize the correct amount of bandwidth.
>
>
> I'd like to know if this responds to the mentioned people's objections.
>

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/