| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Steven Flatt" <steven(dot)flatt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #3898: Postgres autovacuum not respecting pg_autovacuum.enabled = false |
| Date: | 2008-01-24 00:54:21 |
| Message-ID: | 28575.1201136061@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
"Steven Flatt" <steven(dot)flatt(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I noticed that the Postgres autovacuum process was vacuuming some tables
> that had enabled = false in pg_autovacuum.
I think what is happening is that because you set
pg_autovacuum.freeze_max_age to zero, the thing always thinks that it's
time to force an anti-wraparound vacuum. IOW a nondefault freeze age is
still applied whether or not enabled is true. I'm not quite sure if
that's a bug or a feature --- you could argue that it's a feature
because it lets you suppress routine autovacuuming and still customize
the anti-wraparound timing. Maybe it's a documentation bug: the docs
say that enabled = false means the table is "never autovacuumed", but
what the code seems to be implementing is "it's only autovacuumed
when necessary to prevent wraparound". I think that's the behavior
we want ...
In any case, you should be setting "unused" fields of a pg_autovacuum
entry to -1, not zero.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-24 01:09:42 | Re: Statement Timeout Message Incorrect |
| Previous Message | elein | 2008-01-24 00:06:19 | Re: Statement Timeout Message Incorrect |