Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers
Date
Msg-id 1340913200-sup-8470@alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of jue jun 28 15:03:15 -0400 2012:

> 2) They have large partitioned tables, in which the partitions are
> time-based and do not receive UPDATES after a certain date.  Each
> partition was larger than RAM.

I think the solution to this problem has nothing to do with vacuum or
autovacuum settings, and lots to do with cataloguing enough info about
each of these tables to note that, past a certain point, they don't need
any vacuuming at all.

--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: initdb check_need_password fix
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Uh, I change my mind about commit_delay + commit_siblings (sort of)