Re: Autovacuum behavior

From: John Scalia <jayknowsunix(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Autovacuum behavior
Date: 2015-07-30 19:13:07
Message-ID: CABzCKRB19WVRhR2A7Hwx5YC8RNnotb+ojtO26YB9DCuuBMfkvg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin

And there are no reloptions set for any tables in pg_class.

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:11 PM, John Scalia <jayknowsunix(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Sure, I just replied too quickly as there was no vacuum_cost_limit, so I'm
> guessing the default of 200 is being used. I'll look in pg_class to see if
> anything is set.
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>> John Scalia wrote:
>> > autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit is currently set at -1. Not really sure
>> what
>> > it should be, as I still need to look that up.
>>
>> Yes, I saw that from your snippet, but that value means to use the value
>> from vacuum_cost_limit. If that one is set to a positive value, it may
>> lead to sleeps during vacuum.
>>
>> Also, tables could have values set in pg_class.reloptions, leading to
>> sleeps.
>>
>> --
>> Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
>> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
>>
>
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Om Prakash Jaiswal 2015-07-31 04:44:27 Re: Autovacuum behavior
Previous Message John Scalia 2015-07-30 19:11:57 Re: Autovacuum behavior