Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Josh Berkus
Тема Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers
Дата
Msg-id 4FEBBFF8.7020301@agliodbs.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
> I think what you've really got here is inappropriate autovacuum cost
> delay settings, and/or the logic in autovacuum.c to try to divvy up the
> available I/O capacity by tweaking workers' delay settings isn't working
> very well.  It's hard to propose improvements without a lot more detail
> than you've provided, though.

Wait, we *have* that logic?  If so, that's the problem ... it's not
working very well.

What detail do you want?


-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com




В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: David Johnston
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers
Следующее
От: Stephen Frost
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers