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

Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum loose ends

From: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum loose ends
Date: 2005-07-25 04:45:26
Message-ID: 42E46E66.70402@zeut.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Alvaro Herrera wrote:

>On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 02:33:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>  
>
>>Hmm, I wonder whether the minimum shouldn't be 10.  Or even 60.
>>    
>>
>
>It's ok with me.  What do other people think?
>  
>

Effectiely, this is going to be the minimum amount of "down time" for 
autovacuum between checking databases, right?  So if the minimum is 10 
seconds, and there I have six databases, then it will check each 
database at most once per minute?  If so, then I'm not sure what I think 
if I have a few hundred databases, 10s might be too long.

>>What's the use-case for having the stat reset feature at all?
>>    
>>
>
>I don't know.  Maybe the people who added it can tell?
>  
>

I don't know either, but this brings up another question.  Stats 
wraparound.  The n_tup_ins/upd/del columns in the stats system are 
defined as bigint, what happens when the total number of upd for example 
exceeds the capacity for bigint, or overflows to negative, anyone have 
any idea?

Matt


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-07-25 04:59:01
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum loose ends
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-07-25 03:46:02
Subject: Re: regression failure on stats test

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-07-25 04:59:01
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum loose ends
Previous:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2005-07-25 01:31:15
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum loose ends

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