Re: can't stop autovacuum by HUP'ing the server

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: can't stop autovacuum by HUP'ing the server
Date: 2008-08-26 17:31:55
Message-ID: 20080826173155.GO4920@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > If it doesn't ignore them, then it should be properly vacuuming
> > template0 as any other database. We've changed autovac's behavior on
> > this area back and forth so I may be misremembering what's our rationale
> > du jour.
>
> AFAICS, the only way in which current autovac treats !datallowconn
> databases specially is this test in do_autovacuum:
>
> if (dbForm->datistemplate || !dbForm->datallowconn)
> default_freeze_min_age = 0;
> else
> default_freeze_min_age = vacuum_freeze_min_age;
>
> Perhaps there's something wrong with the idea of setting freeze_min_age
> to zero?

Nope, AFAICS it's harmless; what it means is that on those databases,
all tuples will be frozen immediately.

I'll try to reproduce the problem here.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-08-26 17:33:49 Re: can't stop autovacuum by HUP'ing the server
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-08-26 17:31:29 Re: Split up the wiki TODO page?