On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote: > Backpatching sounds a bit scary. It's not a clear-cut bug, it's just that > autovacuum could be smarter about its priorities. There are other ways you > can still bump into the xid-wraparound issue, even with this patch.
I don't think this is a single-priority issue. It's *also* crucial that small tables with high "tuple attrition rates" get vacuumed extremely frequently; your system will bog down, albeit in a different way, if the small tables don't get vacuumed enough. This seems to me to involve multiple competing priorities where the main solution *I* can think of is to have multiple backends doing autovacuum, and assigning some to XID activity and others to the "small, needs vacuuming frequently" tables. -- When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?" -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
