From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables |
Date: | 2013-01-27 20:47:20 |
Message-ID: | CAMkU=1wnqF-JUFY7g-485Y9whn0aUSFWX++KeF4kuKvHzp61SA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a bug pending that autovacuum fails to give priority to
> for-wraparound tables. When xid consumption rate is high and dead tuple
> creation is also high, it is possible that some tables are waiting for
> for-wraparound vacuums that don't complete in time because the workers
> are busy processing other tables that have accumulated dead tuples; the
> system is then down because it's too near the Xid wraparound horizon.
> Apparently this is particularly notorious in connection with TOAST
> tables, because those are always put in the tables-to-process list after
> regular tables.
Is something killing off your autovacuum workers routinely, such that
they rarely reach the end of their to-do list?
Otherwise it seems like the tables would come up for vacuuming in a
cyclic fashion, staggered for each worker; and it being a circle it
shouldn't systematically matter where in it they were added.
What are the various settings for vacuuming?
Cheers,
Jeff
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2013-01-27 20:51:54 | Re: Event Triggers: adding information |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-01-27 20:24:19 | Re: enhanced error fields |