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
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? |