| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Hammond <andrew(dot)george(dot)hammond(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Best Practice for running vacuums during off hours WAS Re: Autovacuum launcher doesn't notice death of postmaster immediately |
| Date: | 2007-06-07 22:35:31 |
| Message-ID: | 20070607223531.GC13687@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Hammond escribió:
> That's a good question. I can't see any reason for a naptime longer
> than 60 seconds either.
>
> I think very large naptime settings are a symptom of another issue:
> what's the Right Way to defer vacuums until "off hours"? Is that even
> a desirable thing anymore? I don't think it is in the majority of
> cases.
>
> I originally thought that this was more of a Best Practices issue (ie,
> fix in the docs, not the code), but now I'm wondering if there's much
> call for supporting the idea of being more aggressive with vacuums at
> different times of the day / week / month. Anyone?
That's why the intention is to have the autovacuum scheduling feature
be a mechanism for changing the autovac parameters according to date and
time. We even have a Google Summer of Code project about that.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/DXLWNGRJD34J
"La virtud es el justo medio entre dos defectos" (Aristóteles)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-06-07 22:46:17 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Avoid losing track of data for shared tables in pgstats. |
| Previous Message | Andrew Hammond | 2007-06-07 22:31:41 | Best Practice for running vacuums during off hours WAS Re: Autovacuum launcher doesn't notice death of postmaster immediately |