| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Andrew Hammond" <andrew(dot)george(dot)hammond(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Autovacuum launcher doesn't notice death of postmaster immediately |
| Date: | 2007-06-07 19:27:34 |
| Message-ID: | 20701.1181244454@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Andrew Hammond" <andrew(dot)george(dot)hammond(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Hmmm... it seems to me that points new users towards not using
> autovacuum, which doesn't seem like the best idea. I think it'd be
> better to say that setting the naptime really high is a Bad Idea.
It seems like we should have an upper limit on the GUC variable that's
less than INT_MAX ;-). Would an hour be sane? 10 minutes?
This is independent of the problem at hand, though, which is that we
probably want the launcher to notice postmaster death in less time
than autovacuum_naptime, for reasonable values of same.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-06-07 19:28:27 | Re: Controlling Load Distributed Checkpoints |
| Previous Message | Dann Corbit | 2007-06-07 19:19:07 | pqlib suggestion |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-06-07 19:28:27 | Re: Controlling Load Distributed Checkpoints |
| Previous Message | Andrew Hammond | 2007-06-07 19:13:09 | Re: Autovacuum launcher doesn't notice death of postmaster immediately |