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

Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers
Date: 2012-06-28 03:22:41
Message-ID: 29891.1340853761@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> I think what you've really got here is inappropriate autovacuum cost
>> delay settings, and/or the logic in autovacuum.c to try to divvy up the
>> available I/O capacity by tweaking workers' delay settings isn't working
>> very well.  It's hard to propose improvements without a lot more detail
>> than you've provided, though.

> Wait, we *have* that logic?  If so, that's the problem ... it's not
> working very well.

> What detail do you want?

What's it doing?  What do you think it should do instead?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-06-28 03:38:39
Subject: Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-06-28 03:20:43
Subject: Re: Server crash while trying to fetch EXPLAIN query results with a cursor

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