Re: Some thoughts about i/o priorities and throttling vacuum

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
To: Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Some thoughts about i/o priorities and throttling vacuum
Date: 2003-10-17 14:06:05
Message-ID: 20031017140605.GA3723@dcc.uchile.cl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 07:04:45PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:

> And if pg_autovacuum is running along with postmaster all the time, with
> aggressive polling like 5 sec, the database should not accumulate any dead
> tuples nor it would suffer xid wraparound as there are vacuum happening
> constantly.

The database can suffer XID wraparound anyway if there's at least one
table without updates, because the autovacuum daemon will never vacuum
it (correct me if I'm wrong).

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"Tiene valor aquel que admite que es un cobarde" (Fernandel)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Shridhar Daithankar 2003-10-17 14:11:38 Re: Some thoughts about i/o priorities and throttling vacuum
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-10-17 14:05:16 Re: Mapping Oracle types to PostgreSQL types