Re: Still recommending daily vacuum...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Still recommending daily vacuum...
Date: 2007-07-03 20:36:23
Message-ID: 13153.1183494983@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

"Jim C. Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 11:19:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Is there a reason to say anything beyond "use autovac"?

> There is; I know that things like web session tables aren't handled very
> well by autovacuum if there are any moderately large tables (anything
> that will take more than a few minutes to vacuum). Eventually we should
> be able to accommodate that case with multiple workers, but we'll need a
> mechanism to ensure that at least one worker doesn't get tied up in
> large vacuums.

And which part of that do you think isn't resolved in 8.3?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2007-07-03 20:46:10 Re: Still recommending daily vacuum...
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2007-07-03 20:13:40 Re: Still recommending daily vacuum...

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2007-07-03 20:46:10 Re: Still recommending daily vacuum...
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2007-07-03 20:13:40 Re: Still recommending daily vacuum...