From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, Gourish Singbal <gourish(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: auto vacuuming |
Date: | 2006-04-01 03:17:47 |
Message-ID: | 6933.1143861467@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>> Currently there is no way to exclude entire databases from autovacuum.
> IIRC in one of the original patches I had added a way to do it. It was
> rejected however; it was argued that there was another mechanism to
> disable it. I don't remember what it was though.
I can't think of one either. Real question is, why would you want to?
Disabled autovac would for instance be unable to protect you against XID
wraparound, which IMHO is one of the major advantages of running it at
all.
The handwriting on the wall says that autovac will soon be on by
default, and perhaps become not-disablable some day after that
(like the second or third time we hear from someone who's lost
their data to XID wraparound after disabling it).
So if there's a really convincing use-case for locking autovac out
of specific databases, we'd better hear it soon.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-01 03:29:01 | Re: auto vacuuming |
Previous Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2006-03-31 23:45:38 | Re: auto vacuuming |