Horton

Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, amit.kapila16@gmail.com
Date: 2023-04-03T18:43:14Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com> writes:
> v13 attached with requested updates.

I'm afraid I'd not been paying any attention to this discussion,
but better late than never.  I'm okay with letting autovacuum
processes reload config files more often than now.  However,
I object to allowing ProcessConfigFile to be called from within
commands in a normal user backend.  The existing semantics are
that user backends respond to SIGHUP only at the start of processing
a user command, and I'm uncomfortable with suddenly deciding that
that can work differently if the command happens to be VACUUM.
It seems unprincipled and perhaps actively unsafe.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Fix assertion failure in heap_vacuum_rel

  2. Fix vacuum_cost_delay check for balance calculation.

  3. Fix autovacuum cost debug logging

  4. Refresh cost-based delay params more frequently in autovacuum

  5. Separate vacuum cost variables from GUCs

  6. Make vacuum failsafe_active globally visible

  7. Don't balance vacuum cost delay when per-table settings are in effect