Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Janes
Subject Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables
Date
Msg-id CAMkU=1zf0g3nrcZzuqCMp2_oSz84nKevJPnhvpDTaYNjxXEhHg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm worried about the case of a very, very frequently updated table
> getting put ahead of a table that needs a wraparound vacuum, but only
> just.  It doesn't sit well with me to think that the priority of that
> goes from 0 (we don't even try to update it) to infinity (it goes
> ahead of all tables needing to be vacuumed for dead tuples) the
> instant we hit the vacuum_freeze_table_age.

What if it were the instant we hit autovacuum_freeze_max_age, not
vacuum_freeze_table_age?  Or does the current behavior already do
this?  Which process is responsible for enforcing
autovacuum_freeze_max_age?


Cheers,

Jeff



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jeff Janes
Date:
Subject: Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables
Next
From: Phil Sorber
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility)