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 23:27:14 |
Message-ID: | 21508.1243380434@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:
> Tom Lane escribi:
>> 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.
> We already have a 100ms lower bound on the sleep time (see
> launcher_determine_sleep()). Maybe that needs to be increased?
Maybe. I hesitate to suggest a GUC variable ;-)
One thought is that I don't trust the code implementing the minimum
too much:
/* 100ms is the smallest time we'll allow the launcher to sleep */
if (nap->tv_sec <= 0 && nap->tv_usec <= 100000)
{
nap->tv_sec = 0;
nap->tv_usec = 100000; /* 100 ms */
}
What would happen if tv_sec is negative and tv_usec is say 500000?
Maybe negative tv_sec is impossible here, but ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-05-26 23:51:54 | Re: Problems with autovacuum |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-05-26 23:12:42 | Re: Problems with autovacuum |