> well, my current opinion is that we should spend some nonzero amount
> of thought into figuring out what to do.
I'd suggest to do it like this:
Do autovac_refresh_stats() once per autovacuum_naptime/2 and share the
result among all autovacuum workers.
This would guarantee that autovacuum is fired no later than
autovacuum_naptime after the condition for the run became true.
If it's not that easy to code then don't share it among the workers and
do it once per worker - typically there are not so many workers.
And for bigger installations document that it's highly recommend to put
the stats file on ramdisk.
Kuba
Dne 17.2.2010 0:12, Alvaro Herrera napsal(a):
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera<alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes:
Jakub Ouhrabka wrote:
Was autovacuum requesting to write this 20MB file 650x per minute?
Yes, exactly.
Ideally, autovacuum would only request a new copy of the file if the one
it got was considerably out of date. Obviously a tenth of a second is
not old enough.
Wasn't it you that insisted on a short staleness criterion for autovac
in the first place?
well, my current opinion is that we should spend some nonzero amount of
thought into figuring out what to do.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
