Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I meant a while (sleep 1(or 10) and counter longtime) check for
exit instead of sleep longtime.
Ah; yes, what I was proposing (or thought about proposing, not sure if I
posted it or not) was putting a upper limit of 10 seconds in the sleep
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD escribió:
The launcher is set up to wake up in autovacuum_naptime
seconds
at most.
Imho the fix is usually to have a sleep loop.
This is what we have. The sleep time depends on the schedule
of next vacuum for the closest database in time.
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 12:23:50PM +0200, Zdenek Kotala wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD escribió:
The launcher is set up to wake up in autovacuum_naptime
seconds
at most.
Imho the fix is usually to have a sleep loop.
This is what we have. The sleep time depends on
Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 12:23:50PM +0200, Zdenek Kotala wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD escribió:
The launcher is set up to wake up in autovacuum_naptime
seconds
at most.
Imho the fix is usually to have a sleep loop.
This is what we have. The
Matthew T. O'Connor schrieb:
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Hammond [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hmmm... it seems to me that points new users towards not using
autovacuum, which doesn't seem like the best idea. I think it'd be
better to say that setting the naptime really high is a Bad Idea.
It seems
The launcher is set up to wake up in autovacuum_naptime seconds at
most.
Imho the fix is usually to have a sleep loop.
Andreas
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD escribió:
The launcher is set up to wake up in autovacuum_naptime seconds at
most.
Imho the fix is usually to have a sleep loop.
This is what we have. The sleep time depends on the schedule of next
vacuum for the closest database in time. If naptime is
Michael Paesold wrote:
Matthew T. O'Connor schrieb:
Do we need a configurable autovacuum naptime at all? I know I put it
in the original contrib autovacuum because I had no idea what knobs
might be needed. I can't see a good reason to ever have a naptime
longer than the default 60 seconds,
Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD escribió:
The launcher is set up to wake up in autovacuum_naptime
seconds
at most.
Imho the fix is usually to have a sleep loop.
This is what we have. The sleep time depends on the schedule
of next vacuum for the closest database in time.
The launcher is set up to wake up in autovacuum_naptime
seconds
at most.
Imho the fix is usually to have a sleep loop.
This is what we have. The sleep time depends on the schedule
of next vacuum for the closest database in time. If naptime
is high, the sleep time will be
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 09:49:56AM -0400, Matthew O'Connor wrote:
Michael Paesold wrote:
Matthew T. O'Connor schrieb:
Do we need a configurable autovacuum naptime at all? I know I put it
in the original contrib autovacuum because I had no idea what knobs
might be needed. I can't see a
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:13:09PM -0700, Andrew Hammond wrote:
On 6/7/07, Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 11:04:26AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
The launcher is set up to wake up in autovacuum_naptime seconds at most.
So if the user configures a ridiculuos
Jim C. Nasby escribió:
There *is* reason to allow setting the naptime smaller, though (or at
least there was; perhaps Alvero's recent changes negate this need):
clusters that have a large number of databases. I've worked with folks
who are in a hosted environment and give each customer their
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Jim C. Nasby escribió:
There *is* reason to allow setting the naptime smaller, though (or at
least there was; perhaps Alvero's recent changes negate this need):
clusters that have a large number of databases. I've worked with folks
who are in a hosted environment and give
Matthew T. O'Connor escribió:
Ok, but I think the question posed is that in say a virtual hosting
environment there might be say 1,000 databases in the cluster. Am I
still going to have to wait a long time for my database to get vacuumed?
I don't think this has changed much no?
Depends
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Matthew T. O'Connor escribió:
Ok, but I think the question posed is that in say a virtual hosting
environment there might be say 1,000 databases in the cluster.
That is uhmmm insane... 1000 databases?
Joshua D. Drake
Am I
still going to have to wait a long time for
@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum launcher doesn't notice death of
postmaster immediately
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Matthew T. O'Connor escribió:
Ok, but I think the question posed is that in say a virtual hosting
environment there might be say 1,000 databases in the cluster
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 11:04:26AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
The launcher is set up to wake up in autovacuum_naptime seconds at most.
So if the user configures a ridiculuos time (for example 86400 seconds,
which I've seen) then the launcher would not detect the postmaster death
Yeah, I've
On 6/7/07, Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 11:04:26AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
The launcher is set up to wake up in autovacuum_naptime seconds at most.
So if the user configures a ridiculuos time (for example 86400 seconds,
which I've seen) then the launcher
Andrew Hammond [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hmmm... it seems to me that points new users towards not using
autovacuum, which doesn't seem like the best idea. I think it'd be
better to say that setting the naptime really high is a Bad Idea.
It seems like we should have an upper limit on the GUC
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Hammond [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hmmm... it seems to me that points new users towards not using
autovacuum, which doesn't seem like the best idea. I think it'd be
better to say that setting the naptime really high is a Bad Idea.
It seems like we should have an upper
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/7/07, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Hammond writes:
Hmmm... it seems to me that points new users towards not using
autovacuum, which doesn't seem like the best idea. I think it'd be
better to say that setting the
Andrew Hammond escribió:
That's a good question. I can't see any reason for a naptime longer
than 60 seconds either.
I think very large naptime settings are a symptom of another issue:
what's the Right Way to defer vacuums until off hours? Is that even
a desirable thing anymore? I don't
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I notice that in 8.3, when I kill the postmaster process with SIGKILL or
SIGSEGV, the child processes writer and stats collector go away
immediately, but the autovacuum launcher hangs around for up to a
minute. (I suppose this has to do with the periodic wakeups?).
24 matches
Mail list logo
