| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Return of the Solaris vacuum polling problem -- anyone remember this? |
| Date: | 2010-08-18 20:57:13 |
| Message-ID: | 4C6C4929.4030800@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Tested that. It does look like if I increase vacuum_cost_limit to 10000
> and lower vacuum_cost_page_dirty to 10, it reads 5-7 pages and writes
> 2-3 before each pollsys. The math seems completely wrong on that,
> though -- it should be 50 and 30 pages, or similar. If I can, I'll test
> a vacuum without cost_delay and make sure the pollsys() are connected to
> the cost delay and not something else.
Hmmm. Looks like, at least in 8.3, running a manual vacuum on a table
doesn't prevent anti-wraparound vacuum from restarting. So I can't do
any further testing until we can restart the server.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-08-18 20:57:27 | Re: Progress indication prototype |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-18 20:52:46 | Re: Per-tuple memory leak in 9.0 |