On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 12:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > "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 ... Hmmm.... ponders a difficult choice: Having an autovacuum cancelled doesn't seem to have huge utility, but then neither does allowing a stupidly long autovacuum either. On balance if it is running, it is running for a reason, so to interrupt that reason is not useful behaviour. If anybody wants their autovacuums to run in less time they can give it more memory. So yes, autovacuum should ignore statement_timeout all of the time. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
