Thread: Autovacuum and XID wraparound
Folks, Per Neil Conway, here's some doc patches re: the autovacuum daemon's behavior. Should this be back-patched to 8.2x? Cheers, D -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote! Consider donating to PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Attachment
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes:
> Per Neil Conway, here's some doc patches re: the autovacuum daemon's
> behavior. Should this be back-patched to 8.2x?
This fact is already documented in at least three places; do we really
need two more? The proposed addition to postgresql.conf seems
particularly over-the-top, since there is no entry in that file that
even pretends to offer a complete description of the associated
behavior.
regards, tom lane
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 10:06:40PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes: > > Per Neil Conway, here's some doc patches re: the autovacuum > > daemon's behavior. Should this be back-patched to 8.2x? > > This fact is already documented in at least three places; do we > really need two more? Yes. > The proposed addition to postgresql.conf seems particularly > over-the-top, since there is no entry in that file that even > pretends to offer a complete description of the associated behavior. I think that a boolean that doesn't do what you expect booleans to do, i.e. turn the thing all the way off, is worth a mention. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote! Consider donating to PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
On Sun, 2007-13-05 at 22:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > This fact is already documented in at least three places; do we really > need two more? I think we need to at least modify the documentation for the autovacuum GUC parameter, which currently states only that it "controls whether the server should run the autovacuum launcher daemon" -- this is not strictly true, and in any case, it isn't the whole story. > The proposed addition to postgresql.conf seems particularly > over-the-top I agree that this information doesn't really belong in postgresql.conf. -Neil
David Fetter wrote: > On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 10:06:40PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes: > > > Per Neil Conway, here's some doc patches re: the autovacuum > > > daemon's behavior. Should this be back-patched to 8.2x? > > > > This fact is already documented in at least three places; do we > > really need two more? > > Yes. > > > The proposed addition to postgresql.conf seems particularly > > over-the-top, since there is no entry in that file that even > > pretends to offer a complete description of the associated behavior. > > I think that a boolean that doesn't do what you expect booleans to do, > i.e. turn the thing all the way off, is worth a mention. I agree with Tom. I don't think the current behavior is a major issue for users for it to be mentioned more than it already is, though if you want to move one of those, we can do that. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Mon, 2007-14-05 at 16:22 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I agree with Tom. I don't think the current behavior is a major issue > for users for it to be mentioned more than it already is Are you really suggesting that we shouldn't modify config.sgml to note that "autovacuum = off" does not actually imply that "the autovacuum daemon is disabled"? ISTM that plainly violates the principle of least surprise -- it is almost the definition of what an entry in config.sgml *should* include. > though if you want to move one of those, we can do that. So the change would be okay if we also removed one of the other mentions in an unrelated section of the manual? I don't see the logic. -Neil
Neil Conway wrote: > On Mon, 2007-14-05 at 16:22 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I agree with Tom. I don't think the current behavior is a major issue > > for users for it to be mentioned more than it already is > > Are you really suggesting that we shouldn't modify config.sgml to note > that "autovacuum = off" does not actually imply that "the autovacuum > daemon is disabled"? ISTM that plainly violates the principle of least > surprise -- it is almost the definition of what an entry in config.sgml > *should* include. I agree, the note should be added there (but it should be a short one and refer the reader someplace else for more complete details). Was there a doc patch proposed already? I seem to have missed it. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
On Tue, 2007-15-05 at 09:07 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I agree, the note should be added there (but it should be a short one > and refer the reader someplace else for more complete details). I've applied the attached patch to HEAD and REL8_2_STABLE. -Neil