| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | senor <frio_cervesa(at)hotmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: autovacuum_freeze_max_age on append-only tables |
| Date: | 2022-04-21 13:35:45 |
| Message-ID: | a9399ae2d3cba3385a5abcf2dc693e7a402d5fbe.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 2022-04-20 at 23:06 +0000, senor wrote:
> I'm apparently needing an education on how this "to avoid wraparound" vacuum differs from
> any other. I've seen it referenced as "more aggressive" but I'd like details.
The difference is twofold, as far as I know:
- it will not skip any pages just because it happens not to get a lock on them
- it will refuse to die if the lock it holds on the table conflicts with a user lock
Unless you are in the habit of taking strong locks on the table, you shouldn't
notice a difference. Anti-wraparound VACUUM is a routine activity and does not
interfere with DML, just like a normal VACUUM.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
--
Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alex Aquino | 2022-04-21 13:42:10 | Re: Are stored procedures/triggers common in your industry |
| Previous Message | Chris Bisnett | 2022-04-21 12:17:26 | Re: LwLocks contention |