On 12/02/2014 10:35 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > If the table is large, the time window for this to happen is large also; > there might never be a time window large enough between two lock > acquisitions for one autovacuum run to complete in a table. This > starves the table from vacuuming completely, until things are bad enough > that an emergency vacuum is forced. By then, the bloat is disastrous. > > I think it's that suicide that Andres wants to disable.
A much better solution for this ... and one which would solve a *lot* of other issues with vacuum and autovacuum ... would be to give vacuum a way to track which blocks an incomplete vacuum had already visited. This would be even more valuable for freeze. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
