On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > On 01/23/2014 12:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> 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. >> >> Thoughts? > > If we let autovacuum block user activity, a lot more people would turn > it off. > > 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 > with you.
Agree completely. Easy ways to monitor this would be great. Once you know there's a problem, tweaking autovacuum settings is very hard and misunderstood, and explaining how to be effective at it is a dark art too. -Harold -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
