pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
To: Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
Subject: Re: Background vacuum
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 20:09:02 -0700
Message-ID: <464D18CE.8070408@cheapcomplexdevices.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0705172246320.20470@westnet.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>

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?

view thread (11+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <464D18CE.8070408@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
Permalink:  ../464D18CE.8070408@cheapcomplexdevices.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/464D18CE.8070408@cheapcomplexdevices.com

copy link · copy postgr.es

reply

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: rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com, gsmith@gregsmith.com
  Subject: Re: Background vacuum
  In-Reply-To: <464D18CE.8070408@cheapcomplexdevices.com>

* 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