Steve Kehlet wrote: > Now it's just about preventing this. Our best guess at this point is the > autovacuums aren't working fast enough. Sure enough this instance has our > old values for: > autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay: 20ms > autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit: 200 > > We've since started using: > autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay: 10ms > autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit: 2000 > > We'll be updating those settings as soon as possible. > > Just looking for some expert eyes on this problem. Are we on the track > track? I.e. is making the autovacuumer run more aggressively our best bet > to avoid this issue? Not really. Your best bet is to reduce the autovacuum_multixact_freeze_min_age limit, so that vacuums are able to get rid of multixacts sooner (and/or reduce autovacuum_multixact_freeze_table_age, so that whole-table vacuuming takes place earlier). You may need to decrease the cost_delay too (and/or increase the cost_limit) in order for autovac to be able to keep up, but really that's more a side effect because of a possible need for autovac to do more in the same period of time. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
