From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: tuning autovacuum |
Date: | 2011-06-09 02:15:40 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTi=bnRN-O_UX4ypfOpV0SLDiRWwhkg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I think it'd be really useful to expose some more data in this area
>> though. One random idea is - remember the time at which a table was
>> first observed to need vacuuming. Clear the timestamp when it gets
>> vacuumed. Then you can do:
>
> As far as I recall that logic, there is no delay between when we know
> that a table needs vacuumed and when we do it. I don't see the point of
> introducing any such delay, either.
Well, if there are more tables that need vacuuming than there are
workers available at any given time, there will be a delay. We
probably don't keep track of that delay at present, but we could.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-06-09 02:17:04 | Re: SSI work for 9.1 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-09 01:50:22 | Re: tuning autovacuum |