Tom Lane escribió: > "Steven Flatt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I noticed that the Postgres autovacuum process was vacuuming some tables > > that had enabled = false in pg_autovacuum. > > I think what is happening is that because you set > pg_autovacuum.freeze_max_age to zero, the thing always thinks that it's > time to force an anti-wraparound vacuum. IOW a nondefault freeze age is > still applied whether or not enabled is true.
That's correct. > I'm not quite sure if that's a bug or a feature --- you could argue > that it's a feature because it lets you suppress routine autovacuuming > and still customize the anti-wraparound timing. Maybe it's a > documentation bug: the docs say that enabled = false means the table > is "never autovacuumed", but what the code seems to be implementing is > "it's only autovacuumed when necessary to prevent wraparound". I > think that's the behavior we want ... IMO it's a usability bug which will be gone when we move to pg_class.reloptions -- you won't need to set random values for options you don't know what to set to. As for documentation, this is mentioned somewhere. Perhaps not clearly enough? OTOH I think the real problem is that people think documentation can be skipped, thus they don't know the "fine print" -- so it won't matter how non-fine we make it. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
