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

From Josh Berkus
Subject Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers
Date
Msg-id 4FEBBFF8.7020301@agliodbs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
> I think what you've really got here is inappropriate autovacuum cost
> delay settings, and/or the logic in autovacuum.c to try to divvy up the
> available I/O capacity by tweaking workers' delay settings isn't working
> very well.  It's hard to propose improvements without a lot more detail
> than you've provided, though.

Wait, we *have* that logic?  If so, that's the problem ... it's not
working very well.

What detail do you want?


-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Johnston
Date:
Subject: Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers