| From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables |
| Date: | 2013-01-27 19:33:18 |
| Message-ID: | CAMkU=1zf0g3nrcZzuqCMp2_oSz84nKevJPnhvpDTaYNjxXEhHg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I'm worried about the case of a very, very frequently updated table
> getting put ahead of a table that needs a wraparound vacuum, but only
> just. It doesn't sit well with me to think that the priority of that
> goes from 0 (we don't even try to update it) to infinity (it goes
> ahead of all tables needing to be vacuumed for dead tuples) the
> instant we hit the vacuum_freeze_table_age.
What if it were the instant we hit autovacuum_freeze_max_age, not
vacuum_freeze_table_age? Or does the current behavior already do
this? Which process is responsible for enforcing
autovacuum_freeze_max_age?
Cheers,
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Phil Sorber | 2013-01-27 19:38:09 | Re: [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility) |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2013-01-27 19:17:24 | Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables |