On Jul 3, 2007, at 3:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 11:19:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Is there a reason to say anything beyond "use autovac"?
There is; I know that things like web session tables aren't handled very
well by autovacuum if there are any moderately large tables (anything
that will take more than a few minutes to vacuum). Eventually we should be able to accommodate that case with multiple workers, but we'll need a
mechanism to ensure that at least one worker doesn't get tied up in
large vacuums.


And which part of that do you think isn't resolved in 8.3?

It's still possible to tie up all autovac workers in large tables, though of course it's now far less likely.

BTW, +1 to dropping the thresholds to a very low value. 0 might be pushing it, but 10 or 20 certainly doesn't sound absurd.
--
Jim Nasby                                            [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at

               http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

Reply via email to