On 4/21/15 4:45 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: > This comment made me wonder... has anyone considered handing the pruning > work off to a bgworker, at least for SELECTs? That means the selects > themselves wouldn't be burdened by the actual prune work, only in > notifying the bgworker. While that's not going to be free, presumably > it's a lot cheaper...
The nice thing about having foreground queries to the light cleanup is that they can work in parallel and naturally hit the interesting parts of the table first. In order for a background worker to keep up with some of the workloads that have been presented as counterexamples, you'd need multiple background workers operating in parallel and preferring to work on certain parts of a table. That would require a lot more sophisticated job management than we currently have for, say, autovacuum. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
