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
>>
>
>
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 |