> > Not sure what you mean by that, but it sounds like the behaviour of my AVD > > (having it block until the vacuum command completes) is fine, and perhaps > > preferrable. > > I can easily imagine larger systems with multiple CPUs and multiple disk > and card bundles to support multiple databases. In this case, I have a > hard time figuring out why you'd not want to allow multiple concurrent > vacuums. I guess I can understand a recommendation of only allowing a > single vacuum, however, should it be mandated that AVD will ONLY be able > to perform a single vacuum at a time?
Hmm.. CPU time (from what I've seen) isn't an issue. Strictly disk. The big problem with multiple vacuums is determining which tables are in common areas. Perhaps a more appropriate rule would be 1 AVD per tablespace? Since PostgreSQL only has a single tablespace at the moment.... -- Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
