From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
Cc: Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Background vacuum
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 23:22:04 -0400
Message-ID: <18134.1179458524@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <464D18CE.8070408@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
References: <4642A1B3.6030009@swissembedded.com>
<4642A811.9010703@drivefaster.net>
<4643B490.2040704@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
<20070517135530.GI6907@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
<464D04F8.7020306@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
<Pine.GSO.4.64.0705172246320.20470@westnet.com>
<464D18CE.8070408@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com> writes:
> Greg Smith wrote:
>> Count me on the side that agrees adjusting the vacuuming parameters is
>> the more straightforward way to cope with this problem.
> Agreed for vacuum; but it still seems interesting to me that
> across databases and workloads high priority transactions
> tended to get through faster than low priority ones. Is there
> any reason to believe that the drawbacks of priority inversion
> outweigh the benefits of setting priorities?
Well, it's unclear, and anecdotal evidence is unlikely to convince
anybody. I had put some stock in the CMU paper, but if it's based
on PG 7.3 then you've got to **seriously** question its relevance
to the current code.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com, gsmith@gregsmith.com
Subject: Re: Background vacuum
In-Reply-To: <18134.1179458524@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox