Re: Too many autovacuum workers spawned during forced auto-vacuum

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Too many autovacuum workers spawned during forced auto-vacuum
Date: 2017-01-20 07:43:19
Message-ID: CAB7nPqQP5X0E25zaHtYseyu6Jmq6AgbzK7EwL9eaovJwXq9r7A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 4:11 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> After sleeping on this, I'm inclined to go with Amit's fix for now.
>> It seems less likely to break anything in the back-branches than any
>> other option I can think up.
>
> Yeah, no objections here.

+1.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2017-01-20 07:59:52 Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2017-01-20 07:34:52 Re: increasing the default WAL segment size