Horton

Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often

Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Date: 2023-04-05T20:38:17Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
> On 5 Apr 2023, at 22:19, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:

> The bigger problem seems to
> be everything else -- the way that tuning autovacuum_max_workers kinda
> makes sense (it shouldn't be an interesting tunable)

Not to derail this thread, and pre-empt a thread where this can be discussed in
its own context, but isn't that kind of the main problem?  Tuning autovacuum is
really complicated and one of the parameters that I think universally seem to
make sense to users is just autovacuum_max_workers.  I agree that it doesn't do
what most think it should, but a quick skim of the name and docs can probably
lead to a lot of folks trying to use it as hammer.

--
Daniel Gustafsson

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