Re: Background vacuum

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