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

Re: autovacuum stress-testing our system

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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      
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tomas VondraDate: 2012-09-26 15:35:02
Subject: Re: autovacuum stress-testing our system
Previous:From: Marko KreenDate: 2012-09-26 15:28:41
Subject: Re: [9.1] 2 bugs with extensions

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