Message-ID: <43E0F344.5020008@zeut.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 12:43:32 -0500
From: "Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.4 (Windows/20050908)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>,  pgsql-admin@postgresql.org,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] autovacuum
References: <1137992841.28304.48.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<5001.71.40.140.99.1138286468.squirrel@mail.tocr.com>
	<60psm7knlq.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com>
	<20060201172905.GA7879@surnet.cl>
In-Reply-To: <20060201172905.GA7879@surnet.cl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Chris Browne wrote:
> 
>> It strikes me as a slick idea for autovacuum to take on that
>> behaviour.  If the daily backup runs for 2h, then it is quite futile
>> to bother vacuuming a table multiple times during that 2h period when
>> none of the tuples obsoleted during the 2h period will be able to be
>> cleaned out until the end.
> 
> Hmm, yeah, sounds useful.  There's one implementation issue to notice
> however, and it's that the autovacuum process dies and restarts for each
> iteration, so there's no way for it to remember previous state unless
> it's saved somewhere permanent, as the stats info is.
> 
> However this seems at least slightly redundant with the "maintenance
> window" feature -- you could set a high barrier to vacuum during the
> daily backup period instead.  (Anybody up for doing this job?)

I can't promise anything, but it's on my list of things to hopefully 
find time for in the coming months.  No way I can start it in Feb, but 
maybe sometime in March.  Anyone else?


Matt