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

Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers
Date: 2012-06-28 19:54:42
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of jue jun 28 15:03:15 -0400 2012:

> 2) They have large partitioned tables, in which the partitions are
> time-based and do not receive UPDATES after a certain date.  Each
> partition was larger than RAM.

I think the solution to this problem has nothing to do with vacuum or
autovacuum settings, and lots to do with cataloguing enough info about
each of these tables to note that, past a certain point, they don't need
any vacuuming at all.

Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-06-28 19:55:54
Subject: Re: Uh, I change my mind about commit_delay + commit_siblings (sort of)
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2012-06-28 19:48:11
Subject: initdb check_need_password fix

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group