Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill)
| От | Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill) |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAC8Q8tJVO+2hZMrLyv=AaHKA45S8dcWC7kARUX6xU2qJSeoLqQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill) (Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill)
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
By the way, the Routine Vacuuming chapter of the documentation says:
"The sole disadvantage of increasing autovacuum_freeze_max_age (and
vacuum_freeze_table_age along with it) is that the pg_xact and
pg_commit_ts subdirectories of the database cluster will take more space
[...]
If [pg_xact and pg_commit_ts taking 0.5 and 20 GB, respectively]
is trivial compared to your total database size, setting
autovacuum_freeze_max_age to its maximum allowed value is recommended."
Maybe this should be qualified with "unless you have trouble with your
autovacuum keeping up" or so; or generally reworded?
This recommendation is in the mindset of "wraparound never happens".
If your database is large, you have more chances to hit it painfully, and if it's append-only even more so.
Alternative point of "if your database is super large and actively written, you may want to set autovacuum_freeze_max_age to even smaller values so that autovacuum load is more evenly spread over time" may be needed.
Darafei Praliaskouski
Support me: http://patreon.com/komzpa
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: