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

Re: Problems with autovacuum

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Łukasz Jagiełło <lukasz(dot)jagiello(at)gforces(dot)pl>, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Problems with autovacuum
Date: 2009-05-26 19:01:19
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Sorry, it's the other way around actually -- correct for 8.3 onwards,
> wrong for 8.1 and 8.2.  In the earlier versions, it would do one run in
> a chosen database, sleep during "naptime", then do another run.

> Tom Lane escribi:
>> I suppose the use of "minimum" means that this is not technically
>> incorrect, but it's sure not very helpful if there is some other
>> rule involved that causes it to not behave as I said.  (And if there
>> is some other rule, what is that?)

> The word "minimum" is there because it's possible that all workers are
> busy with some other database(s).

>> Please improve the docs.

> I'll see about that.

Hmm, maybe we need to improve the code too.  This example suggests that
there needs to be some limit on the worker launch rate, even if there
are so many databases that that means we don't meet naptime exactly.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Greg SmithDate: 2009-05-26 21:51:25
Subject: Hosted servers with good DB disk performance?
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2009-05-26 18:41:15
Subject: Re: Problems with autovacuum

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