DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
	h=received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id;
	b=aLLKWA/uTaCa3bokb6wpzyP9swElhjedtbZwzn495qEZQqlslT0M3jV9ZmL8VoIW7s+UcGxfECH1LpbK4GLe9az8q7gnf9fsqSwNIFkp2ttWVQgy224uBKsoWtdklcs+jEgZu0fZbhuJBxml7RyAx1mByUTP2z0gCFGhc0Dx5JI=
From: Dimitri <dimitrik.fr@gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Subject: Re: Parallel Vacuum
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:05:37 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
References: <200703221435.54408.dimitrik.fr@gmail.com>
	<20070322135205.GD4102@alvh.no-ip.org>
In-Reply-To: <20070322135205.GD4102@alvh.no-ip.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200703221605.38460.dimitrik.fr@gmail.com>

On Thursday 22 March 2007 14:52, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Dimitri escribi=F3:
> > Folks,
> >
> > is there any constrains/problems/etc. to run several vacuum processes in
> > parallel while each one is 'vaccuming' one different table?
>
> No, no problem.  Keep in mind that if one of them takes a very long
> time, the others will not be able to remove dead tuples that were
> killed while the long vacuum was running -- unless you are in 8.2.

Yes, I'm using the last 8.2.3 version. So, will they *really* processing in=
=20
parallel, or will block each other step by step?

Rgds,
=2DDimitri