Christopher Browne wrote: > Seems to me that you could get ~80% of the way by having the simplest > "2 queue" implementation, where tables with size < some threshold get > thrown at the "little table" queue, and tables above that size go to > the "big table" queue. > > That should keep any small tables from getting "vacuum-starved." Hmm, would it make sense to keep 2 queues, one that goes through the tables in smaller-to-larger order, and the other one in the reverse direction? I am currently writing a design on how to create "vacuum queues" but I'm thinking that maybe it's getting too complex to handle, and a simple idea like yours is enough (given sufficient polish). -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
