| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Steve Singer <steve(at)ssinger(dot)info>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: snapshot too old, configured by time |
| Date: | 2016-04-05 03:38:32 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZRw88gMAHzVP53Wd9Bqo-Rk0X2g8Gr9e_PE2O2_+WbibA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Also, HOT-cleanup should stop the bloat increase once the snapshot
> crosses the old_snapshot_threshold without even needing to wait until
> the next autovac runs.
>
> Does the code intentionally only work for manual vacuums? If so, that
> seems quite surprising. Or perhaps I am missing something else here.
What proportion of the statements in your simulated workload were
updates? Per my last mail to this thread, I'm interested in knowing if
this was a delete heavy workload.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-04-05 03:47:31 | Re: pgbench more operators & functions |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-04-05 03:32:18 | Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers |