On 19/12/06, Chris Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
matthew@zeut.net ("Matthew O'Connor") writes: > 2) Once we can have multiple autovacuum workers: Create the concept of > hot tables that require more attention and should never be ignored for > more that X minutes, perhaps have one "autovacuum worker" per hot > table? (What do people think of this?)One worker per "hot table" seems like overkill to me; you could chew up a lot of connections that way, which could be a DOS.
Sounds like a max workers config varible would work quite well here. Bit like the max connections varible. If we run out of workers we just have to wait for one to finish. I think we need one daemon to analyse what needs vacuuming and then lauch workers to do the actual work.. Peter Childs
That you have a "foot gun" is guaranteed; I think I'd rather that it come in the form that choosing the "hot list" badly hurts the rate of vacuuming than that we have a potential to chew up numbers of connections (which is a relatively non-renewable resource). -- (format nil "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" "cbbrowne" "cbbrowne.com") http://linuxdatabases.info/info/ There are no "civil aviation for dummies" books out there and most of you would probably be scared and spend a lot of your time looking up if there was one. :-) -- Jordan Hubbard in c.u.b.f.m ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
