From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
To: Ron <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Avoid Wraparound Failures
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2022 05:50:32 +0100
Message-ID: <c3a1bd51686c32f399b7f23e48aec4820e8bad15.camel@cybertec.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e94006fe-b953-720e-c6b8-a7f76145fa55@gmail.com>
References: <CA+FWGK6HmRx8=-2wZkw-9a6a36f6iEGgAH=bN1rNicbFgzas5A@mail.gmail.com>
<965a52fe849ec6e5759d349b4063b5077353f24b.camel@cybertec.at>
<e94006fe-b953-720e-c6b8-a7f76145fa55@gmail.com>
On Fri, 2022-03-25 at 23:45 -0500, Ron wrote:
> > If you want to prevent that autovacuum run from happening while your system is
> > busy (which normally also is no problem), you can trigger a manual VACUUM at
> > a time of lower database activity. But make it a plain VACUUM, not a
> > VACUUM (FREEZE)
>
> Why not VACUUM FREEZE?
Because then you freeze *all* visible rows, not only those that are older than
"vacuum_freeze_min_age". That will cause more pages to get dirtied, so there will
be more writing I/O. And unless all these rows won't get modified in the forseeable
future, that is a waste. "vacuum_freeze_min_age" is there for a reason: the
expectation is that rows that have not been modified for 50 million transactions
have better odds at not getting modified soon.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
--
Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: laurenz.albe@cybertec.at, ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com, pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Avoid Wraparound Failures
In-Reply-To: <c3a1bd51686c32f399b7f23e48aec4820e8bad15.camel@cybertec.at>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox