On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 8:15 PM Senor <frio_cerv...@hotmail.com> 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 proceed. > IIUC "conflicting lock to proceed" is just a different way to say "give up a lock". 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 anti-wraparound vacuum so I presume it will still sleep by default. > Is there any benefit to manually running a vacuum every so many inserts > as opposed to using autovacuum_freeze_max_age. And in this case should > it be a vacuum freeze. Rows are never updated or deleted except for the > occasional roll back due to dropped network connections. > > You might consider creating a security definer function (that performs vacuum freeze on the table) owned by the table owner and grant your inserting process the ability to execute it. David J.
