Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Stefan Kaltenbrunner" <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>
Cc: "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher
Date: 2007-10-01 17:15:08
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Stefan Kaltenbrunner" <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> writes:

> some additional datapoints:
> autovacuum on, delay 20: 8h 40min
> autovacuum on, delay 0: 4h 23min

I realize this isn't directly addressing the problem but perhaps part of the
solution would be to start advocating the use of pg_restore -1 ? That would
solve the problem for the narrow case of pg_restore.

In the long run we could think about exposing some kind of command for
pg_restore to use which would disable autovacuum from touching a table. (Or
take a session-level lock on the table -- shudder)

  Gregory Stark

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Islam HegazyDate: 2007-10-01 17:17:47
Subject: Re: adding operators
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2007-10-01 17:13:41
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PG on NFS may be just a bad idea

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group