From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Return of the Solaris vacuum polling problem -- anyone remember this?
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 13:57:13 -0700
Message-ID: <4C6C4929.4030800@agliodbs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C6C431B.9010406@agliodbs.com>
References: <4C69827A.409@agliodbs.com>
<19969.1281986537@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<4C6C2B2B.9060501@agliodbs.com>
<8599.1282158010@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<4C6C2E4A.1010506@agliodbs.com>
<8807.1282158479@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<4C6C431B.9010406@agliodbs.com>
> Tested that. It does look like if I increase vacuum_cost_limit to 10000
> and lower vacuum_cost_page_dirty to 10, it reads 5-7 pages and writes
> 2-3 before each pollsys. The math seems completely wrong on that,
> though -- it should be 50 and 30 pages, or similar. If I can, I'll test
> a vacuum without cost_delay and make sure the pollsys() are connected to
> the cost delay and not something else.
Hmmm. Looks like, at least in 8.3, running a manual vacuum on a table
doesn't prevent anti-wraparound vacuum from restarting. So I can't do
any further testing until we can restart the server.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.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-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: josh@agliodbs.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Subject: Re: Return of the Solaris vacuum polling problem -- anyone remember this?
In-Reply-To: <4C6C4929.4030800@agliodbs.com>
* 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