On Thu, 2003-10-16 at 16:16, Greg Stark wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Of course, this makes VACUUM run longer, and if you are waiting for it > > to finish, it would be worse, like if you are running it at night or > > something. > > My plan was that the time delay would be a parameter and pg_autovacuum would > set it based on the observed rate at which free space is accumulating.
I don't know that pg_autovacuum is smart enough to make a good guess as to an appropriate parameter. > > I think the delay has to take into account the number of active > > transactions or something. I think this is a better plan than pg_autovacuum, this would also allow vacuum to have a different delay for each loop depending on the current number of transactions. > But vacuum has no way to judge whether those transactions are really doing > much disk i/o or only reading cached blocks, or even whether the disk i/o > they're doing is on the same disk. They could also be waiting on the client or > on locks from other transactions. True, it would be a rough estimate, but at least one based on something representative of system I/O load at that moment. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])