| From: | Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Cancelling of autovacuums considered harmful |
| Date: | 2014-02-27 00:40:51 |
| Message-ID: | 530E8993.4030600@pinpointresearch.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 02/26/2014 08:56 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> ...
> No matter how heavily updated, regular activity should not cause
> autovacuum kills. Only heavier operations would do that (say ALTER
> TABLE, etc).
"Considered harmful" got my attention. What, if any, known harm is caused?
We have many errors of this type but in our case most are due to batch
processes that have a vacuum embedded at appropriate points in the
string of commands in order to avoid excessive bloat and to ensure the
tables are analyzed for the following steps. Occasionally the autovacuum
triggers before the manual but gets canceled.
Any harm?
Cheers,
Steve
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steve Crawford | 2014-02-27 00:44:56 | Re: Cancelling of autovacuums considered harmful |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2014-02-26 22:08:57 | Re: Cancelling of autovacuums considered harmful |