Jonah H. Harris wrote:
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?
For the immediate term, would it make sense for the ANALYZE to give up
and simply return if a VACUUM was in progress?
At least that way a client that sees performance degrade quickly between
vacuums can run the occasional preventative analyze without blocking
completely on auto-vacuums.
Jeroen
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
