On 8/7/2004 2:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>> Just curious, but isn't this one of the key points about pg_autovacuum in
>> the first place? So that you vacuum what needs to be vacuum'd, and not
>> *everything* ... ? Shouldn't the answer to the 'bandwidth issue' change
>> to 'you should install/use pg_autovacuum'?
> No, not really, but I think it's much more likely that you'd want to
> enable vacuum delay for autovacuum-commanded vacuums than vacuums
> commanded interactively. Or, if you still prefer the old-tech way of
> performing routine vacuums from a cron script, you'd probably turn on
> vacuum delay in that cron script.
> I think we *should* add to autovacuum a parameter to let it set
> vacuum_delay for its vacuums, and maybe even default to having it on.
> But I'm unconvinced we want any delay as the global default.
That sounds like a good idea.
But then again, based on this entire discussion and the fact that
unvoluntary vacuum runs during a production servers peak time are the
worst thing that can happen, I take it that it was never intended to
enable pg_autovacuum by default either and that one has to enable it
explicitly in the configuration, right?
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
In response to
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-08-08 00:26:54|
|Subject: Re: pgsql-server: Vacuum delay activated by default. |
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2004-08-07 21:48:09|
|Subject: pgsql-server: The attached patch implements a symlink for win32 using |