Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Yeah, maybe we should make it put the failed table at the end of the > list, for the next run. This is not simple to implement, if only > because autovac workers don't have any way to persist state from one run > to the next. But this kind of thing causes enough problems that it's > probably worth it. > One thing to keep in mind, though, is that a persistent error in a > single table is enough to keep a database's datfrozenxid from advancing, > and thus shut down in case the wraparound horizon comes too close. So > perhaps what we need is more visibility into autovacuum problems. +1 for the latter. A recurrent vacuum failure is something that needs to be dealt with ASAP, not partially-worked-around. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
