| 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 19:11:57 |
| Message-ID: | CABzCKRBEmEjdMk4kZPjCyn40hkUbYf0Vm3d3oRSLqNfY=d=OXQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
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 | John Scalia | 2015-07-30 19:13:07 | Re: Autovacuum behavior |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-07-30 19:07:52 | Re: Autovacuum behavior |