Thanks to Mr. Nasby & others for these references & input.
Indeed. I'm rather sure we don't have tables updated heavily enough to
warrant any adjustments to autovacuum, or to do extra 'vacuuming' of the
database. So I'll be leaving it alone (i.e. there's nothing broke so no
fixes needed!)
--Jim :^)
On 10/30/2015 11:52 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 10/29/15 5:01 PM, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
So no harm in keeping it enabled - plus this smells like premature
optimization.
I would not touch this unless you _really_ see a performance problem
that is cause by autovacuum on that database.
Moreso, if you think the problem is autovacuum (in this case) it's
probably something else.
If I can toot my own horn, you might want to watch the recording of
http://www.pgcon.org/2015/schedule/events/829.en.html.
--
--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--
Jim Longwill
jlongw...@psmfc.org
--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
