Re: Why is parula failing?

From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, tharar(at)amazon(dot)com
Subject: Re: Why is parula failing?
Date: 2024-03-20 21:35:45
Message-ID: CAApHDvpQJQNVFRP0k9kt9RLrYMR3=bSa3BfvNMa9OUUpdGoGUQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 at 08:58, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I suppose we could attach "autovacuum=off" settings to these tables,
> but it doesn't seem to me that that should be necessary. These test
> cases are several years old and haven't given trouble before.
> Moreover, if that's necessary then there are a lot of other regression
> tests that would presumably need the same treatment.

Is it worth running that animal with log_autovacuum_min_duration = 0
so we can see what's going on in terms of auto-vacuum auto-analyze in
the log?

David

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Cramer 2024-03-20 21:49:14 Re: Trying to build x86 version on windows using meson
Previous Message Tom Lane 2024-03-20 21:25:45 Re: documentation structure