On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 12:00, Greg Copeland wrote: > 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.
Planned if someone implements it and manages to have it committed prior to release. -- Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
