On 19/12/06, Chris Browne <cbbrowne@xxxxxxx> wrote:
matthew@xxxxxxxx ("Matthew O'Connor") writes:
> 2) Once we can have multiple autovacuum workers: Create the concept of
> hot tables that require more attention and should never be ignored for
> more that X minutes, perhaps have one "autovacuum worker" per hot
> table? (What do people think of this?)
One worker per "hot table" seems like overkill to me; you could chew
up a lot of connections that way, which could be a DOS.
Sounds like a max workers config varible would work quite well here.
Bit like the max connections varible. If we run out of workers we just
have to wait for one to finish. I think we need one daemon to analyse
what needs vacuuming and then lauch workers to do the actual work..
Peter Childs
That you have a "foot gun" is guaranteed; I think I'd rather that it
come in the form that choosing the "hot list" badly hurts the rate of
vacuuming than that we have a potential to chew up numbers of
connections (which is a relatively non-renewable resource).
--
(format nil "~S@~S" "cbbrowne" "cbbrowne.com")
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/
There are no "civil aviation for dummies" books out there and most of
you would probably be scared and spend a lot of your time looking up
if there was one. :-) -- Jordan Hubbard in c.u.b.f.m
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
