"Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 13:50 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> =?iso-8859-2?Q?Marcin_Ma=F1k?= <marcin.mank@gmail.com> writes:
>>> I have an unconfirmed feeling that autovac does not like system-wide
>>> statement_timeout.
>>
>> If you have it set to less than the time needed to do a vacuum, then
>> yes, autovac will fail. You expected differently? Do you think it's
>> a good idea for autovac to ignore statement_timeout? (Maybe it is,
>> but I suspect we'd get complaints about that too.)
> Autovac *must* ignore statement_timeout if it is doing a wraparound
> avoidance scan, surely?
Hmm. Good point. Shall we just make it ignore statement_timeout all
the time, then? We already have it overriding zero_damaged_pages ...
regards, tom lane
