Received: from localhost (maia-4.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B54739FC088 for ; Fri, 18 May 2007 00:09:12 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 57173-02 for ; Fri, 18 May 2007 00:09:04 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from floppy.pyrenet.fr (floppy.pyrenet.fr [194.116.145.2]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37D7B9FB869 for ; Fri, 18 May 2007 00:09:04 -0300 (ADT) Received: by floppy.pyrenet.fr (Postfix, from userid 106) id 41D433090B; Fri, 18 May 2007 05:09:03 +0200 (MET DST) From: Ron Mayer X-Newsgroups: pgsql.performance Subject: Re: Background vacuum Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 20:09:02 -0700 Organization: Hub.Org Networking Services Lines: 11 Message-ID: <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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org To: Greg Smith User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070329) In-Reply-To: To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200705/309 X-Sequence-Number: 24699 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?