| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up? |
| Date: | 2014-01-23 20:53:35 |
| Message-ID: | 52E1814F.4020202@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/23/2014 12:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have run into yet again another situation where there was an
> assumption that autovacuum was keeping up and it wasn't. It was caused
> by autovacuum quitting because another process requested a lock.
>
> In turn we received a ton of bloat on pg_attribute which caused all
> kinds of other issues (as can be expected).
>
> The more I run into it, the more it seems like autovacuum should behave
> like vacuum, in that it gets precedence when it is running. First come,
> first serve as they say.
>
> Thoughts?
If we let autovacuum block user activity, a lot more people would turn
it off.
Now, if you were to argue that we should have some way to monitor the
tables which autovac can never touch because of conflicts, I would agree
with you.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Harold Giménez | 2014-01-23 21:00:20 | Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-01-23 20:49:06 | Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up? |