| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Avoid Wraparound Failures |
| Date: | 2022-03-26 04:50:32 |
| Message-ID: | c3a1bd51686c32f399b7f23e48aec4820e8bad15.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Fri, 2022-03-25 at 23:45 -0500, Ron wrote:
> > If you want to prevent that autovacuum run from happening while your system is
> > busy (which normally also is no problem), you can trigger a manual VACUUM at
> > a time of lower database activity. But make it a plain VACUUM, not a
> > VACUUM (FREEZE)
>
> Why not VACUUM FREEZE?
Because then you freeze *all* visible rows, not only those that are older than
"vacuum_freeze_min_age". That will cause more pages to get dirtied, so there will
be more writing I/O. And unless all these rows won't get modified in the forseeable
future, that is a waste. "vacuum_freeze_min_age" is there for a reason: the
expectation is that rows that have not been modified for 50 million transactions
have better odds at not getting modified soon.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
--
Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Loles | 2022-03-26 06:47:17 | Re: Avoid Wraparound Failures |
| Previous Message | Ron | 2022-03-26 04:45:31 | Re: Avoid Wraparound Failures |