| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Autovacuum vs statement_timeout |
| Date: | 2008-03-11 16:11:13 |
| Message-ID: | 22512.1205251873@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Hmm, AFAIR subsequent investigation led to the discovery that autovacuum
>> is not affected by statement_timeout.
> Right -- see
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.db.postgresql.devel.general/80044/focus=93847
Or even more to the point, look into autovacuum.c:
/*
* Force statement_timeout to zero to avoid a timeout setting from
* preventing regular maintenance from being executed.
*/
SetConfigOption("statement_timeout", "0", PGC_SUSET, PGC_S_OVERRIDE);
> So your documentation changes are incorrect.
Indeed. But wasn't the start of this thread a mention that pg_dump
ought to have a similar defense? AFAIR it does not, so there's still
a small TODO.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-03-11 16:20:57 | Re: [PATCHES] Fix for large file support (nonsegment mode support) |
| Previous Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2008-03-11 16:07:30 | Re: [PATCHES] Fix for large file support (nonsegment mode support) |