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
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 hav
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. If
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
d; Peter Eisentraut; pgsql-hackers@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 th
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 m
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?
Depend
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 e
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 the
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 ridi
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'
> > > > > 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 sl
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 c
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, b
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 nap
> > > 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
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 seem
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 d
-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 t
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
"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
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 launc
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
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
