"Simon Riggs" <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 13:50 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> =?iso-8859-2?Q?Marcin_Ma=F1k?= <marcin.mank@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> I have an unconfirmed feeling that autovac does not like system-wide >>> statement_timeout. >> >> If you have it set to less than the time needed to do a vacuum, then >> yes, autovac will fail. You expected differently? Do you think it's >> a good idea for autovac to ignore statement_timeout? (Maybe it is, >> but I suspect we'd get complaints about that too.) > Autovac *must* ignore statement_timeout if it is doing a wraparound > avoidance scan, surely? Hmm. Good point. Shall we just make it ignore statement_timeout all the time, then? We already have it overriding zero_damaged_pages ... regards, tom lane
