On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 08:42, Rod Taylor wrote: > > > 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....
But tablespace is planned for 7.4 right? Since tablespace is supposed to go in for 7.4, I think you've hit the nail on the head. One AVD per tablespace sounds just right to me. -- Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Copeland Computer Consulting ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
