| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables |
| Date: | 2013-02-02 15:43:43 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZKFZ054vFs6DZbVbQF2kGeEUT9BJbDuAk+YOwTEhgzmw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> As an aside, it does seem like log_autovacuum_min_duration=0 should
> log whether a scan_all was done, and if so what relfrozenxid got set
> to.
That would be nifty.
> [1] I don't know why it is that a scan_all vacuum with a
> freeze_min_age of 50m (or a freezeLimit of 50 million ago) will not
> set relfrozenxid to a higher value than that if it discovers that it
> can, but it doesn't seem to.
That also seems very much worth fixing.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-02-02 16:25:01 | Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-02-02 15:38:16 | Re: Suggestion: Issue warning when calling SET TRANSACTION outside transaction block |