On 01/23/2014 12:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> I have run into yet again another situation where there was an
> assumption that autovacuum was keeping up and it wasn't. It was caused
> by autovacuum quitting because another process requested a lock.
> In turn we received a ton of bloat on pg_attribute which caused all
> kinds of other issues (as can be expected).
> The more I run into it, the more it seems like autovacuum should behave
> like vacuum, in that it gets precedence when it is running. First come,
> first serve as they say.
If we let autovacuum block user activity, a lot more people would turn
Now, if you were to argue that we should have some way to monitor the
tables which autovac can never touch because of conflicts, I would agree
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: