Re: Managing autovacuum freezing

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Don Seiler
Тема Re: Managing autovacuum freezing
Дата
Msg-id CAHJZqBBSDtNMXyVKeXdb_Oz4B+AGCLgG5ZR2dKCoTUmZ558ozA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Managing autovacuum freezing  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Ответы Re: Managing autovacuum freezing  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Список pgsql-admin
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 11:49 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 9:13 AM Don Seiler <don@seiler.us> wrote:
> My understanding is that these manual VACUUM ANALYZE jobs are not freezing rows that regular autovacuuming would otherwise be doing, which leads up to the big anti-wraparound job.

They will freeze rows, but not aggressively. The antiwraparound vacuum
might block on acquiring buffer pins, low level stuff like that.

Perhaps you should change the vacuum_index_cleanup reloption to 'off'
for the table, but make the scripted overnight vacuums directly
specify INDEX_CLEANUP=on. That way index cleanup would still be
performed for the vacuums that run overnight, though not for the
antiwraparound vacuums, where the overhead may be a real issue.

Thanks for the response, Peter. This table *does* have 14 indexes on it as well, including on GIN index (rest are btree, some are partial indexes). I've had a separate task on the back burner to try to identify any redundant ones.

In the scenario you describe, would we re-enable the routine autovacuuming? I'm assuming so but wanted to make it clear.

Cheers,
Don. 


--
Don Seiler
www.seiler.us

В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: srinivas oguri
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: XX000: invalid BTree prefetch end_key
Следующее
От: Peter Geoghegan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Managing autovacuum freezing