Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers
Date: 2012-06-28 02:29:00
Message-ID: 20120628022900.GQ1267@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh, all,

* Josh Berkus (josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com) wrote:
> Yeah, I can't believe I'm calling for *yet another* configuration
> variable either. Suggested workaround fixes very welcome.

As I suggested on IRC, my thought would be to have a goal-based system
for autovacuum which is similar to our goal-based commit system. We
don't need autovacuum sucking up all the I/O in the box, nor should we
ask the users to manage that. Instead, let's decide when the autovacuum
on a given table needs to finish and then plan to keep on working at a
rate that'll allow us to get done well in advance of that deadline.

Just my 2c.

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-06-28 03:20:43 Re: Server crash while trying to fetch EXPLAIN query results with a cursor
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2012-06-28 02:22:48 Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers