| From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Naoya Anzai <anzai-naoya(at)mxu(dot)nes(dot)nec(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Akio Iwaasa <iwaasa(at)mxs(dot)nes(dot)nec(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | Re: Table-level log_autovacuum_min_duration |
| Date: | 2015-03-23 15:23:00 |
| Message-ID: | CAMkU=1x-O1dwC2puGA=eLkbcKsu-AdDmd3kzb6ZQnHCwTb59wg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> So a worker does not see changes in postgresql.conf once it is run and
> >> processes a database, no? The launcher does run ProcessConfigFile()
> >> when SIGHUP shows up though.
>
> > Maybe this is something that we should change.
>
> Yeah, checking for SIGHUP in the worker outer loop (ie once per table)
> seems like a reasonable thing.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Could it be done more often? Maybe every time it is about to do a
cost_delay sleep?
I've certainly regretted the inability to
change autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay mid-table on more than one occasion.
This was mostly during doing testing work, but still I'm sure other people
have run into this problem, perhaps without knowing it.
Cheers,
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-03-23 15:33:12 | Re: Order of enforcement of CHECK constraints? |
| Previous Message | Fabrízio de Royes Mello | 2015-03-23 15:20:14 | Re: Order of enforcement of CHECK constraints? |