| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Łukasz Jagiełło <lukasz(dot)jagiello(at)gforces(dot)pl>, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Problems with autovacuum |
| Date: | 2009-05-26 19:01:19 |
| Message-ID: | 16822.1243364479@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Sorry, it's the other way around actually -- correct for 8.3 onwards,
> wrong for 8.1 and 8.2. In the earlier versions, it would do one run in
> a chosen database, sleep during "naptime", then do another run.
> Tom Lane escribi:
>> I suppose the use of "minimum" means that this is not technically
>> incorrect, but it's sure not very helpful if there is some other
>> rule involved that causes it to not behave as I said. (And if there
>> is some other rule, what is that?)
> The word "minimum" is there because it's possible that all workers are
> busy with some other database(s).
>> Please improve the docs.
> I'll see about that.
Hmm, maybe we need to improve the code too. This example suggests that
there needs to be some limit on the worker launch rate, even if there
are so many databases that that means we don't meet naptime exactly.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2009-05-26 21:51:25 | Hosted servers with good DB disk performance? |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-05-26 18:41:15 | Re: Problems with autovacuum |