Re: Managing autovacuum freezing
От | Don Seiler |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Managing autovacuum freezing |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAHJZqBBSDtNMXyVKeXdb_Oz4B+AGCLgG5ZR2dKCoTUmZ558ozA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Managing autovacuum freezing (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>) |
Ответы |
Re: Managing autovacuum freezing
|
Список | pgsql-admin |
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 11:49 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 9:13 AM Don Seiler <don@seiler.us> wrote:
> My understanding is that these manual VACUUM ANALYZE jobs are not freezing rows that regular autovacuuming would otherwise be doing, which leads up to the big anti-wraparound job.
They will freeze rows, but not aggressively. The antiwraparound vacuum
might block on acquiring buffer pins, low level stuff like that.
Perhaps you should change the vacuum_index_cleanup reloption to 'off'
for the table, but make the scripted overnight vacuums directly
specify INDEX_CLEANUP=on. That way index cleanup would still be
performed for the vacuums that run overnight, though not for the
antiwraparound vacuums, where the overhead may be a real issue.
Thanks for the response, Peter. This table *does* have 14 indexes on it as well, including on GIN index (rest are btree, some are partial indexes). I've had a separate task on the back burner to try to identify any redundant ones.
In the scenario you describe, would we re-enable the routine autovacuuming? I'm assuming so but wanted to make it clear.
Cheers,
Don.
Don Seiler
www.seiler.us
www.seiler.us
В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления: