Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up?
Date
Msg-id 20140123235247.GL7182@awork2.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up?  (Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz>)
Responses Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up?  (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2014-01-24 12:49:57 +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> autovacuum_max_workers = 4
> autovacuum_naptime = 10s
> autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor = 0.1
> autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor = 0.1
> autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay = 0ms
> 
> Stops excessive bloat - clearly autovacuum *is* able to vacuum pg_attribute
> in this case. Back to drawing board for a test case.

Well, I think quite many people don't realize it might be necessary to
tune autovac on busy workloads. As it very well might be the case in
Josh's case.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- Andres Freund                       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Mark Kirkwood
Date:
Subject: Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up?
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up?