Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski
Subject Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill)
Date
Msg-id CAC8Q8tJVO+2hZMrLyv=AaHKA45S8dcWC7kARUX6xU2qJSeoLqQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill)  (Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill)
List pgsql-hackers
By the way, the Routine Vacuuming chapter of the documentation says:

"The sole disadvantage of increasing autovacuum_freeze_max_age (and
vacuum_freeze_table_age along with it) is that the pg_xact and
pg_commit_ts subdirectories of the database cluster will take more space

[...]

If [pg_xact and pg_commit_ts taking 0.5 and 20 GB, respectively]
is trivial compared to your total database size, setting
autovacuum_freeze_max_age to its maximum allowed value is recommended."

Maybe this should be qualified with "unless you have trouble with your
autovacuum keeping up" or so; or generally reworded?

This recommendation is in the mindset of "wraparound never happens".
If your database is large, you have more chances to hit it painfully, and if it's append-only even more so.

Alternative point of "if your database is super large and actively written, you may want to set autovacuum_freeze_max_age to even smaller values so that autovacuum load is more evenly spread over time" may be needed.



 
--
Darafei Praliaskouski

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski
Date:
Subject: Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill)
Next
From: Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski
Date:
Subject: Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill)