| 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: | 1340913200-sup-8470@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-06-28 19:55:54 | Re: Uh, I change my mind about commit_delay + commit_siblings (sort of) |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-06-28 19:48:11 | initdb check_need_password fix |