Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes:
> Well, I think it's "plausible but wrong under at least some common
> circumstances". In addition to seeking, it ignores FS cache effects
> (not that I have any idea how to account for these mathematically). It
> also makes the assumption that 3 autovacuum workers running at 1/3 speed
> each is better than having one worker running at full speed, which is
> debatable.
Well, no, not really, because the original implementation with only one
worker was pretty untenable. But maybe we need some concept like only
one worker working on *big* tables? Or at least, less than max_workers
of them.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
