Horton

Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, "Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>, Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>, Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2007-10-04T14:43:16Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I'd also like to see vacuum_delay_point() do a test against
> CountActiveBackends() to see if anything else is running. If there all
> non-autovac processes are idle or waiting, then we should skip the delay
> point, this time only. That way a VACUUM can go at full speed on an idle
> system and slow down when people get active again. It will also help
> when people issue a DDL statement against a table that is currently
> being vacuumed. I've got a patch worked out to do this.

This is exceedingly Postgres-centric thinking.  The lack of any other
backends does not mean that the system owner wants Postgres to take over
the machine.

			regards, tom lane