Rob Wultsch wrote: > For a documentation patch should this not be back ported to all > relevant versions?
It is only a minor adjustment and I normally don't backpatch that. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > On 8/21/10, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > Josh Berkus wrote: > >> > >> > On further reflection, though: since we put in the BufferAccessStrategy > >> > code, which was in 8.3, the background writer isn't *supposed* to be > >> > very much involved in writing pages that are dirtied by VACUUM. VACUUM > >> > runs in a small ring of buffers and is supposed to have to clean its own > >> > dirt most of the time. So it's wrong to blame this on the bgwriter not > >> > holding up its end. Rather, what you need to be thinking about is how > >> > come vacuum seems to be making lots of pages dirty on only one of these > >> > machines. > >> > >> This is an anti-wraparound vacuum, so it could have something to do with > >> the hint bits. Maybe it's setting the freeze bit on every page, and > >> writing them one page at a time? Still don't understand the call to > >> pollsys, even so, though. > > > > We often mention that we do vacuum freeze for anti-wraparound vacuum, > > but not for pg_clog file removal, which is the primary trigger for > > autovacuum vacuum freezing. I have added the attached documentation > > patch for autovacuum_freeze_max_age; back-patched to 9.0. > > > > -- > > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us > > EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com > > > > + It's impossible for everything to be true. + > > > > > -- > Rob Wultsch > wult...@gmail.com -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
