| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers |
| Date: | 2012-06-28 03:22:41 |
| Message-ID: | 29891.1340853761@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | Postg윈 토토SQL : |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> I think what you've really got here is inappropriate autovacuum cost
>> delay settings, and/or the logic in autovacuum.c to try to divvy up the
>> available I/O capacity by tweaking workers' delay settings isn't working
>> very well. It's hard to propose improvements without a lot more detail
>> than you've provided, though.
> Wait, we *have* that logic? If so, that's the problem ... it's not
> working very well.
> What detail do you want?
What's it doing? What do you think it should do instead?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-06-28 03:38:39 | Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-06-28 03:20:43 | Re: Server crash while trying to fetch EXPLAIN query results with a cursor |