What I am pointing out is that this is all the same issue, and that solutions to the "we can't do priorities because of locking issues" have existed for many years. I/O is the same as processors, it is a resource that needs managing. So the intelligence can be made to exist, it just needs to be made.
Now onto other questions: can vacuuming be done without locks? Can it be done in parts (ie, lock only a bit)? Can the I/O be better managed? Is this a general model that would work well? I have plenty of queries that I would love to run on a "as the system allows" basis, or on a "keep a bit of spare cycles or I/O for the important stuff", but which I cannot specify. So a vote from me for any mechanism that allows priorities to be specified. If this is a desired feature, then comes the hard part of what is feasible, what can be done in a reasonable amount of time, and of doing it. Regards! Ed On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:05:28PM -0400, Edmund Dengler wrote: > > Well, if they are locked waiting on vacuum, then vacuum should upgrade > > it's priority to the highest waiting process (priority inheritance). > > This way, vacuum will be running at a priority level equivalent to who is > > waiting on it. > > Right, but all that intelligence is something that isn't in there > now. And anyway, the real issue is I/O, not processor. > > A > > -- > ---- > Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street > Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> M2P 2A8 > +1 416 646 3304 x110 > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]) > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html