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

Re: can't stop autovacuum by HUP'ing the server

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: can't stop autovacuum by HUP'ing the server
Date: 2008-08-26 17:31:55
Message-ID: 20080826173155.GO4920@alvh.no-ip.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > If it doesn't ignore them, then it should be properly vacuuming
> > template0 as any other database.  We've changed autovac's behavior on
> > this area back and forth so I may be misremembering what's our rationale
> > du jour.
> 
> AFAICS, the only way in which current autovac treats !datallowconn
> databases specially is this test in do_autovacuum:
> 
> 	if (dbForm->datistemplate || !dbForm->datallowconn)
> 		default_freeze_min_age = 0;
> 	else
> 		default_freeze_min_age = vacuum_freeze_min_age;
> 
> Perhaps there's something wrong with the idea of setting freeze_min_age
> to zero?

Nope, AFAICS it's harmless; what it means is that on those databases,
all tuples will be frozen immediately.

I'll try to reproduce the problem here.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-08-26 17:33:49
Subject: Re: can't stop autovacuum by HUP'ing the server
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-08-26 17:31:29
Subject: Re: Split up the wiki TODO page?

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