Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up?
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20140123235247.GL7182@awork2.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up? (Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz>) |
Ответы |
Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-01-24 12:49:57 +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote: > autovacuum_max_workers = 4 > autovacuum_naptime = 10s > autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor = 0.1 > autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor = 0.1 > autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay = 0ms > > Stops excessive bloat - clearly autovacuum *is* able to vacuum pg_attribute > in this case. Back to drawing board for a test case. Well, I think quite many people don't realize it might be necessary to tune autovac on busy workloads. As it very well might be the case in Josh's case. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: