Thanks David
In any case the cost-based stuff throttles I/O only (per the docs at
least) but even while sleeping it still holds its lock. And it won't
be kicked off of the lock by other processes. I don't see where it is
documented that the autovacuum cost settings are altered during the
ant
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 8:15 PM Senor wrote:
>
> Are the autovacuum_vacuum_cost_* settings handled any differently for
> 'to avoid wraparound' vacuums?
> I understand that it won't give up a lock
> but I was expecting it to still back off due to cost and allow the query
> with conflicting lock
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 8:14 PM Senor wrote:
> Are the autovacuum_vacuum_cost_* settings handled any differently for
> 'to avoid wraparound' vacuums? I understand that it won't give up a lock
> but I was expecting it to still back off due to cost and allow the query
> with conflicting lock to proc
Thank you both Laurenz and Peter.
Laurenz - It was an article you posted a couple years ago introducing
the V13 feature that got me thinking about the insert-only situation I had.
Peter - I had been improperly holding anti-wraparound and aggressive in
my mind as related in a way they are not.
On Wed, 2022-04-20 at 23:06 +, senor wrote:
> I'm apparently needing an education on how this "to avoid wraparound" vacuum
> differs from
> any other. I've seen it referenced as "more aggressive" but I'd like details.
The difference is twofold, as far as I know:
- it will not skip any pages
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 4:06 PM senor wrote:
> I'm attempting to mimic a new feature in version 13 where INSERTS will
> trigger vacuum for an append-only table.
The problem with that idea is that you need to express the idea that
the table needs to be vacuumed now in terms of its "age", denomina
