| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Autovacuum vs statement_timeout |
| Date: | 2007-04-17 19:26:16 |
| Message-ID: | 20070417192616.GB72669@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 12:36:01AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > I seem to remember that we'd agreed that autovacuum should ignore any
> > globally set statement_timeout, on the grounds that a poorly chosen
> > setting could indefinitely prevent large tables from being vacuumed.
>
> On a vaguely related matter, should programs such as pg_dump, vacuumdb,
> and reindexdb disable statement_timeout?
Youch... yes, they should IMO. Add clusterdb, pg_dumpall and pg_restore
to that list as well (really, pg_dump(all) should output a command to
disable statement_timeout).
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-04-17 19:51:51 | Re: Autovacuum vs statement_timeout |
| Previous Message | Steve | 2007-04-17 19:19:25 | Re: [HACKERS] choose_bitmap_and again (was Re: [PERFORM] Strangely Variable Query Performance) |