Re: Autovacuum launcher doesn't notice death of postmaster immediately

Matthew T. O'Connor schrieb:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Andrew Hammond" <andrew(dot)george(dot)hammond(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> Hmmm... it seems to me that points new users towards not using
>>> autovacuum, which doesn't seem like the best idea. I think it'd be
>>> better to say that setting the naptime really high is a Bad Idea.
>>
>> It seems like we should have an upper limit on the GUC variable that's
>> less than INT_MAX ;-). Would an hour be sane? 10 minutes?
>>
>> This is independent of the problem at hand, though, which is that we
>> probably want the launcher to notice postmaster death in less time
>> than autovacuum_naptime, for reasonable values of same.
>
> Do we need a configurable autovacuum naptime at all? I know I put it in
> the original contrib autovacuum because I had no idea what knobs might
> be needed. I can't see a good reason to ever have a naptime longer than
> the default 60 seconds, but I suppose one might want a smaller naptime
> for a very active system?

A PostgreSQL database on my laptop for testing. It should use as little
resources as possible while being idle. That would be a scenario for
naptime greater than 60 seconds, wouldn't it?

Best Regards
Michael Paesold