| From: | Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: autovacuum stress-testing our system |
| Date: | 2012-09-26 15:35:02 |
| Message-ID: | 66087d1adc6b71732628a025e970de7c@fuzzy.cz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dne 26.09.2012 17:29, Alvaro Herrera napsal:
> Excerpts from Tomas Vondra's message of mié sep 26 12:25:58 -0300
> 2012:
>> Dne 26.09.2012 16:51, Jeff Janes napsal:
>
>> > I think forking it off to to another value would be better. If
>> you
>> > are an autovacuum worker which is just starting up and so getting
>> its
>> > initial stats, you can tolerate a stats file up to
>> > "autovacuum_naptime
>> > / 5.0" stale. If you are already started up and are just about to
>> > vacuum a table, then keep the staleness at PGSTAT_RETRY_DELAY as
>> it
>> > currently is, so as not to redundantly vacuum a table.
>>
>> I always thought there's a "no more than one worker per database"
>> limit,
>
> There is no such limitation.
OK, thanks. Still, reading/writing the small (per-database) files would
be
much faster so it would be easy to read/write them more often on
demand.
Tomas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2012-09-26 15:37:32 | Re: Oid registry |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-09-26 15:29:22 | Re: autovacuum stress-testing our system |