On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 8:27 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> So my proposal is a bit more complicated. First we introduce the notion >> of a single number, to enable sorting and computations: the "delay >> equivalent", which is the cost_limit divided by cost_delay. > > Here's a patch that implements this idea. As you see this is quite a > bit more complicated that Haribabu's proposal. > > There are two holes in this: > > 1. if you ALTER DATABASE to change vacuum delay for a database, those > values are not considered in the global equiv delay. I don't think this > is very important and anyway we haven't considered this very much, so > it's okay if we don't handle it. > > 2. If you have a "fast worker" that's only slightly faster than regular > workers, it will become slower in some cases. This is explained in a > FIXME comment in the patch. > > I don't really have any more time to invest in this, but I would like to > see it in 9.4. Mark, would you test this? Haribabu, how open are you > to fixing point (2) above?
Thanks Alvaro. I will check the point(2). Regards, Hari Babu Fujitsu Australia -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
