The world rejoiced as [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Joshua D. Drake") wrote: > 2. More importantly the recent potential discovery by Jan on vacuum. > > I have several high end users that are really beating their heads > against the wall with even lazy vacuum because of how brutal it can > be on the system. If we could make vacuum a little less harsh it > could be a large boon.
Boon it would be, I agree. But from what I can tell, Jan has only just gotten to the point of being able to replicate the behaviour, with some initial attempts to address it. He only mentioned it a few days ago. That doesn't establish that there is a comprehensive answer that's ready to deploy. Perhaps there will be something next week, but it may very well take longer. We have been living with the current conditions for several versions; if it is tempting enough, perhaps it will argue for a quick 7.4.1. Indeed, since the functionality has affected various versions, it is not unthinkable that a solution might even be amenable to backporting. But there is a point in time at which to say, "Shoot the engineers, and release the product." :-) I rather think it would be a risky endeavour to hold things off on the _possibility_ that something might happen soon on this, particularly when this was not an expected enhancement. I'm certainly not arguing against the improvement; in separate non-news, I'm still lobbying for my suggestion, of a "VACUUM CACHE", which would go after the 'low hanging fruit' of going after pages that are currently in memory. No going after whole tables; just the bits that require no I/O (save for indexes) because they're already known to be in memory. -- http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/oses.html Rules of the Evil Overlord #121. "If I come into possession of an artifact which can only be used by the pure of heart, I will not attempt to use it regardless." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org