Re: pgsql: Improve autovacuum logging for aggressive andanti-wraparound ru
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgsql: Improve autovacuum logging for aggressive andanti-wraparound ru |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20180921174347.wvszsn7uk56zvz7o@alap3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgsql: Improve autovacuum logging for aggressive and anti-wraparound ru (Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgsql: Improve autovacuum logging for aggressive andanti-wraparound ru
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 2018-09-21 20:38:16 +0300, Sergei Kornilov wrote: > > My first question was whether TWO of them were dead code ... isn't an > > aggressive vacuum to prevent wraparound, and a vacuum to prevent > > wraparound aggressive? > Maybe i am wrong, aggressive autovacuum was your commit. > Message split was in b55509332f50f998b6e8b3830a51c5b9d8f666aa > Aggressive autovacuum was in fd31cd265138019dcccc9b5fe53043670898bc9f > > If aggressive really is wraparound without difference - i think we need refactor this code, it is difficult have two differentflags for same purpose. > > But as far i can see it is possible have aggressive non-wraparound vacuum. One important difference - regular and aggressiveregular can be canceled by backend,.wraparound autovacuum can not. (by checking PROC_VACUUM_FOR_WRAPAROUND in src/backend/storage/lmgr/proc.c) Yes, without checking the code, they should be different. Aggressive is controlled by vacuum_freeze_table_age whereas anti-wrap is controlled by autovacuum_freeze_max_age (but also implies aggressive). Greetings, Andres Freund
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: