| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> |
| 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 15:29:22 |
| Message-ID: | 1348673324-sup-4711@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Tomas Vondra's message of mié 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.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2012-09-26 15:35:02 | Re: autovacuum stress-testing our system |
| Previous Message | Marko Kreen | 2012-09-26 15:28:41 | Re: [9.1] 2 bugs with extensions |