| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: statement_timeout |
| Date: | 2006-11-21 17:14:17 |
| Message-ID: | 9442.1164129257@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
"Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 13:50 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> =?iso-8859-2?Q?Marcin_Ma=F1k?= <marcin(dot)mank(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> I have an unconfirmed feeling that autovac does not like system-wide
>>> statement_timeout.
>>
>> If you have it set to less than the time needed to do a vacuum, then
>> yes, autovac will fail. You expected differently? Do you think it's
>> a good idea for autovac to ignore statement_timeout? (Maybe it is,
>> but I suspect we'd get complaints about that too.)
> Autovac *must* ignore statement_timeout if it is doing a wraparound
> avoidance scan, surely?
Hmm. Good point. Shall we just make it ignore statement_timeout all
the time, then? We already have it overriding zero_damaged_pages ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bob Pawley | 2006-11-21 17:29:38 | Download |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-11-21 17:02:47 | Re: statement_timeout |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-11-21 17:28:11 | Re: quick review |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-11-21 17:02:47 | Re: statement_timeout |