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

Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2

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 (view raw or flat)
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.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-02-27 03:02:47
Subject: Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2
Previous:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2007-02-27 02:47:32
Subject: Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2

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