Re: autovacuum_freeze_max_age on append-only tables - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Laurenz Albe
Subject Re: autovacuum_freeze_max_age on append-only tables
Date
Msg-id a9399ae2d3cba3385a5abcf2dc693e7a402d5fbe.camel@cybertec.at
Whole thread Raw
In response to autovacuum_freeze_max_age on append-only tables  (senor <frio_cervesa@hotmail.com>)
Responses Re: autovacuum_freeze_max_age on append-only tables  (Senor <frio_cervesa@hotmail.com>)
List pgsql-general
On Wed, 2022-04-20 at 23:06 +0000, senor wrote:
> I'm apparently needing an education on how this "to avoid wraparound" vacuum differs from
> any other. I've seen it referenced as "more aggressive" but I'd like details.

The difference is twofold, as far as I know:

- it will not skip any pages just because it happens not to get a lock on them
- it will refuse to die if the lock it holds on the table conflicts with a user lock

Unless you are in the habit of taking strong locks on the table, you shouldn't
notice a difference.  Anti-wraparound VACUUM is a routine activity and does not
interfere with DML, just like a normal VACUUM.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe
-- 
Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com




pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Chris Bisnett
Date:
Subject: Re: LwLocks contention
Next
From: Alex Aquino
Date:
Subject: Re: Are stored procedures/triggers common in your industry