| From: | Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Improve autovacuum logging for aggressive and anti-wraparound ru |
| Date: | 2018-09-21 17:38:16 |
| Message-ID: | 7924791537551496@myt5-c56023d17c6b.qloud-c.yandex.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Hello, Robert
> My first question was whether TWO of them were dead code ... isn't an
> aggressive vacuum to prevent wraparound, and a vacuum to prevent
> wraparound aggressive?
Maybe i am wrong, aggressive autovacuum was your commit.
Message split was in b55509332f50f998b6e8b3830a51c5b9d8f666aa
Aggressive autovacuum was in fd31cd265138019dcccc9b5fe53043670898bc9f
If aggressive really is wraparound without difference - i think we need refactor this code, it is difficult have two different flags for same purpose.
But as far i can see it is possible have aggressive non-wraparound vacuum. One important difference - regular and aggressive regular can be canceled by backend,.wraparound autovacuum can not. (by checking PROC_VACUUM_FOR_WRAPAROUND in src/backend/storage/lmgr/proc.c )
regards, Sergei
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-09-21 17:43:47 | Re: pgsql: Improve autovacuum logging for aggressive and anti-wraparound ru |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-09-21 16:46:50 | Re: pgsql: Improve autovacuum logging for aggressive and anti-wraparound ru |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-09-21 17:43:47 | Re: pgsql: Improve autovacuum logging for aggressive and anti-wraparound ru |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2018-09-21 17:35:28 | pg_atomic_exchange_u32() in ProcArrayGroupClearXid() |