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

Re: can't stop autovacuum by HUP'ing the server

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: can't stop autovacuum by HUP'ing the server
Date: 2008-08-26 17:31:55
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > If it doesn't ignore them, then it should be properly vacuuming
> > template0 as any other database.  We've changed autovac's behavior on
> > this area back and forth so I may be misremembering what's our rationale
> > du jour.
> AFAICS, the only way in which current autovac treats !datallowconn
> databases specially is this test in do_autovacuum:
> 	if (dbForm->datistemplate || !dbForm->datallowconn)
> 		default_freeze_min_age = 0;
> 	else
> 		default_freeze_min_age = vacuum_freeze_min_age;
> Perhaps there's something wrong with the idea of setting freeze_min_age
> to zero?

Nope, AFAICS it's harmless; what it means is that on those databases,
all tuples will be frozen immediately.

I'll try to reproduce the problem here.

Alvaro Herrera                      
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-08-26 17:33:49
Subject: Re: can't stop autovacuum by HUP'ing the server
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-08-26 17:31:29
Subject: Re: Split up the wiki TODO page?

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