| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2 |
| Date: | 2007-02-27 03:00:41 |
| Message-ID: | 20070227030041.GZ19104@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> The advantage to keying this to autovac_naptime is that it means we
> don't need another GUC, but after I suggested that before I realized
> that's probably not the best idea. For example, I've seen clusters that
> are running dozens-hundreds of databases; in that environment you really
> need to turn naptime way down (to like a second). In that case you
> wouldn't want to key to naptime.
Actually, I've been thinking that it would be a good idea to change the
semantics of autovacuum_naptime so that it means the average time to
start a worker in any given database. That way, the time between
autovac runs is not dependent on the number of databases you have.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-02-27 03:02:47 | Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2 |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2007-02-27 02:47:32 | Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2 |