Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables

From: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables
Date: 2013-01-30 18:21:07
Message-ID: 1359570067.32849.YahooMailNeo@web162901.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

> I can't imagine that anybody with a large database ran pg
> successfully with a small freeze_min_age due to this.

I can't speak to this from personal experience, because at
Wisconsin Courts we found ourselves best served by running a
database VACUUM FREEZE ANALYZE each night during off-peak hours.

> It seems to be broken since the initial introduction of
> freeze_table_age in 6587818542e79012276dcfedb2f97e3522ee5e9b.

> Trivial patch attached.

I didn't see a patch attached.

-Kevin


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andres FreundDate: 2013-01-30 18:26:06
Subject: Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables
Previous:From: Pavan DeolaseeDate: 2013-01-30 18:07:41
Subject: Re: lazy_vacuum_heap()'s removal of HEAPTUPLE_DEAD tuples

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group