Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers
Date: 2012-06-28 02:22:48
Message-ID: 4FEBBFF8.7020301@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> I think what you've really got here is inappropriate autovacuum cost
> delay settings, and/or the logic in autovacuum.c to try to divvy up the
> available I/O capacity by tweaking workers' delay settings isn't working
> very well. It's hard to propose improvements without a lot more detail
> than you've provided, though.

Wait, we *have* that logic? If so, that's the problem ... it's not
working very well.

What detail do you want?

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2012-06-28 02:29:00 Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers
Previous Message David Johnston 2012-06-28 02:21:30 Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers