On 3. April 2011, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 19:26:56 +0200, "Henry C."
wrote:
> > On Sat, April 2, 2011 14:17, Jens Wilke wrote:
> >> Nevertheless since at least 8.4 IMO there's no need to bother
> >> with manual vacuum any more.
>
> Uhh, this is entirely untrue. There are plent
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 19:26:56 +0200, "Henry C." wrote:
>> On Sat, April 2, 2011 14:17, Jens Wilke wrote:
>>> Nevertheless since at least 8.4 IMO there's no need to bother with
>>> manual vacuum any more.
>
> Uhh, this is entirely untrue. Ther
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 19:26:56 +0200, "Henry C." wrote:
> On Sat, April 2, 2011 14:17, Jens Wilke wrote:
>> Nevertheless since at least 8.4 IMO there's no need to bother with
>> manual vacuum any more.
Uhh, this is entirely untrue. There are plenty of cases where 8.4
autovacuum can't cut it.
>
> S
On Sat, April 2, 2011 22:30, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Have you tried upping the aggressiveness of autovacuum?
>>
>
> I'm wondering about poor selection of the cost_delay settings in
> particular. It's quite easy to slow autovacuum to the point that it takes
> forever to do anything.
It's been on the de
Scott Marlowe writes:
> On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Henry C. wrote:
>> Sadly, in my case, the db is so busy that autovac processes run for weeks and
>> never catch up (insufficient h/w for the app quite frankly - the addition of
>> some more SSD drives have already helped).
> Have you tried
On Sat, April 2, 2011 21:26, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Henry C. wrote:
>
>> On Sat, April 2, 2011 14:17, Jens Wilke wrote:
>>
>>> Nevertheless since at least 8.4 IMO there's no need to bother with
>>> manual vacuum any more.
>>
>> Sadly, in my case, the db is so busy
On Samstag, 2. April 2011, Henry C. wrote:
> Sadly, in my case, the db is so busy that autovac processes run
> for weeks and never catch up
Increase the cost_limit and the HW and/or check your application, if
it's possible to reduce the amount of deletes and/or updates.
Regards, Jens
--
Sent
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Henry C. wrote:
> On Sat, April 2, 2011 14:17, Jens Wilke wrote:
>> Nevertheless since at least 8.4 IMO there's no need to bother with
>> manual vacuum any more.
>
> Sadly, in my case, the db is so busy that autovac processes run for weeks and
> never catch up (ins
On Sat, April 2, 2011 14:17, Jens Wilke wrote:
> Nevertheless since at least 8.4 IMO there's no need to bother with
> manual vacuum any more.
Sadly, in my case, the db is so busy that autovac processes run for weeks and
never catch up (insufficient h/w for the app quite frankly - the addition of
s
Forgot to mention: I'm using 9.0.3
> Usually a manual vacuum cancels a running autovacuum task.
Not in my case - however, the autovac does seem to be in a waiting state.
> You should find a notice about the cancelation in th logfile.
>
> > current_query | vacuum analyze
> > age | 11:
Le 02/04/2011 16:06, Sven Haag a écrit :
>
> Original-Nachricht
>> Datum: Sat, 2 Apr 2011 14:17:37 +0200
>> Von: Jens Wilke
>> An: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
>> Betreff: Re: [GENERAL] Autovacuum firing up during my manual vacuum on same
>&
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Sat, 2 Apr 2011 14:17:37 +0200
> Von: Jens Wilke
> An: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Betreff: Re: [GENERAL] Autovacuum firing up during my manual vacuum on same
> table
> On Samstag, 2. April 2011, Henry C. wrote:
>
> &g
On Samstag, 2. April 2011, Henry C. wrote:
> I just noticed something odd: I'm busy with a manual vacuum on a
> table and an autovacuum keeps firing up as well.
Usually a manual vacuum cancels a running autovacuum task.
You should find a notice about the cancelation in th logfile.
> current_qu
> Anyway, is that autovac duplicating work or locked out and waiting?
Impolitely responding to my own post: a quick strace confirms the autovac
process is indeed locked out and waiting it's turn to work.
Presumably when my manual vacuum finishes, it will then proceed and
*hopefully* not re-vacu
Greets,
I just noticed something odd: I'm busy with a manual vacuum on a table and an
autovacuum keeps firing up as well. Thinking this looks rather weird, I
pg_cancel_backend() the autovacuum process:
current_query | vacuum analyze page_citation_text;
age | 11:34:10.759279
...
curren
15 matches
Mail list logo
