| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers |
| Date: | 2012-06-28 02:22:48 |
| Message-ID: | 4FEBBFF8.7020301@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 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?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2012-06-28 02:29:00 | Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers |
| Previous Message | David Johnston | 2012-06-28 02:21:30 | Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers |