| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up? |
| Date: | 2014-01-23 23:52:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20140123235247.GL7182@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-01-24 12:49:57 +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> autovacuum_max_workers = 4
> autovacuum_naptime = 10s
> autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor = 0.1
> autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor = 0.1
> autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay = 0ms
>
> Stops excessive bloat - clearly autovacuum *is* able to vacuum pg_attribute
> in this case. Back to drawing board for a test case.
Well, I think quite many people don't realize it might be necessary to
tune autovac on busy workloads. As it very well might be the case in
Josh's case.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-01-23 23:55:21 | Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up? |
| Previous Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2014-01-23 23:49:57 | Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up? |