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

Re: autovacuum stress-testing our system

From: Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: autovacuum stress-testing our system
Date: 2012-09-26 15:35:02
Message-ID: 66087d1adc6b71732628a025e970de7c@fuzzy.cz (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Dne 26.09.2012 17:29, Alvaro Herrera napsal:
> Excerpts from Tomas Vondra's message of miƩ sep 26 12:25:58 -0300 
> 2012:
>> Dne 26.09.2012 16:51, Jeff Janes napsal:
>
>> > I think forking it off to to another value would be better.  If 
>> you
>> > are an autovacuum worker which is just starting up and so getting 
>> its
>> > initial stats, you can tolerate a stats file up to
>> > "autovacuum_naptime
>> > / 5.0" stale.  If you are already started up and are just about to
>> > vacuum a table, then keep the staleness at PGSTAT_RETRY_DELAY as 
>> it
>> > currently is, so as not to redundantly vacuum a table.
>>
>> I always thought there's a "no more than one worker per database"
>> limit,
>
> There is no such limitation.

OK, thanks. Still, reading/writing the small (per-database) files would 
be
much faster so it would be easy to read/write them more often on 
demand.

Tomas


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2012-09-26 15:37:32
Subject: Re: Oid registry
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2012-09-26 15:29:22
Subject: Re: autovacuum stress-testing our system

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