Re: pgsql-server: Vacuum delay activated by default.
От | Jan Wieck |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgsql-server: Vacuum delay activated by default. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4115718C.5010009@Yahoo.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgsql-server: Vacuum delay activated by default. (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgsql-server: Vacuum delay activated by default.
|
Список | pgsql-committers |
On 8/7/2004 2:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes: >> Just curious, but isn't this one of the key points about pg_autovacuum in >> the first place? So that you vacuum what needs to be vacuum'd, and not >> *everything* ... ? Shouldn't the answer to the 'bandwidth issue' change >> to 'you should install/use pg_autovacuum'? > > No, not really, but I think it's much more likely that you'd want to > enable vacuum delay for autovacuum-commanded vacuums than vacuums > commanded interactively. Or, if you still prefer the old-tech way of > performing routine vacuums from a cron script, you'd probably turn on > vacuum delay in that cron script. > > I think we *should* add to autovacuum a parameter to let it set > vacuum_delay for its vacuums, and maybe even default to having it on. > But I'm unconvinced we want any delay as the global default. That sounds like a good idea. But then again, based on this entire discussion and the fact that unvoluntary vacuum runs during a production servers peak time are the worst thing that can happen, I take it that it was never intended to enable pg_autovacuum by default either and that one has to enable it explicitly in the configuration, right? Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
В списке pgsql-committers по дате отправления: