Josh Berkus wrote:
I think the difficulty is figuring out what to get the existing
workers to give us some memory when a new one comes along. You want
the first worker to potentially use ALL the memory... until worker #2
arrives.
Yeah, doing this would mean that you couldn't give
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 01:12, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org wrote:
So for the initial implementation, we could just have each worker set
its local maintenance_work_mem to autovacuum_maintenance_memory / max_workers.
That way there's never excessive memory usage.
It sounds reasonable,
Itagaki Takahiro itagaki.takah...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 01:12, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org wrote:
So for the initial implementation, we could just have each worker set
its local maintenance_work_mem to autovacuum_maintenance_memory /
max_workers.
That way
On 16.11.2010 18:12, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Thoughts?
Sounds reasonable, but you know what would be even better? Use less
memory in vacuum, so that it doesn't become an issue to begin with.
There was some discussion on that back in 2007
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org wrote:
Magnus was just talking to me about having a better way of controlling
memory usage on autovacuum. Instead of each worker using up to
maintenance_work_mem, which ends up as a disaster when DBA A sets to a
large
On 11/16/10 9:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I'm a little skeptical about creating more memory tunables. DBAs who
are used to previous versions of PG will find that their vacuum is now
really slow, because they adjusted maintenance_work_mem but not this
Also, generally people who are using
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 11/16/10 9:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I'm a little skeptical about creating more memory tunables. DBAs who
are used to previous versions of PG will find that their vacuum is now
really slow, because they adjusted
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 10:36 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 11/16/10 9:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I'm a little skeptical about creating more memory tunables. DBAs who
are used to previous versions of PG will find that their vacuum is now
really slow, because they adjusted maintenance_work_mem
I think the difficulty is figuring out what to get the existing
workers to give us some memory when a new one comes along. You want
the first worker to potentially use ALL the memory... until worker #2
arrives.
Yeah, doing this would mean that you couldn't give worker #1 all the
memory,
Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of mar nov 16 15:52:14 -0300 2010:
I think the difficulty is figuring out what to get the existing
workers to give us some memory when a new one comes along. You want
the first worker to potentially use ALL the memory... until worker #2
arrives.
Relevant to this is the question: *when* does vacuum do its memory
allocation? Is memory allocation reasonably front-loaded, or does
vacuum keep grabbing more RAM until it's done?
All at start.
That means that allocation by halves would work fine.
--
--
11 matches
Mail list logo
