On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:19 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> The case I'm looking at is a large table which requires a lazy vacuum, >> and a zero vacuum cost delay would cause too much I/O. Yet, this >> table has enough insert/delete activity during a vacuum, that it >> requires a fairly frequent analysis to maintain proper plans. I >> patched as mentioned above and didn't run across any unexpected >> issues; the only one expected was that mentioned by Alvaro. > > I don't find this a compelling argument, at least not without proof that > the various vacuum-improvement projects already on the radar screen > (DSM-driven vacuum, etc) aren't going to fix your problem.
Is DSM going to be in 8.4? The last I had heard, DSM+related improvements weren't close to being guaranteed for this release. If it doesn't make it, waiting another year and a half for something easily fixed would be fairly unacceptable. Should I provide a patch in the event that DSM doesn't make it? -Jonah -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers