Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill)

David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>

From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>, Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Darafei Komяpa Praliaskouski <me@komzpa.net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net>
Date: 2020-03-26T21:18:40Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 at 07:51, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2020-03-26 10:12:39 +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > On Wed, 2020-03-25 at 23:19 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > I am reluctant to introduce new semantics like a reloption value of -2
> > to disable a feature in this patch right before feature freeze.
> >
> > I believe there are enough options to disable insert-only vacuuming for
> > an individual table:
>
> > - Set the threshold to 2147483647.  True, that will not work for very
> >   large tables, but I think that there are few tables that insert that
> >   many rows before they hit autovacuum_freeze_max_age anyway.
> >
> > - Set the scale factor to some astronomical value.
>
> Meh. You *are* adding new semantics with these. And they're terrible.

I've modified this to allow a proper way to disable the entire feature
by allowing the setting to be set to -1 to disable the feature. I feel
people are fairly used to using -1 to disable various features (e.g.
log_autovacuum_min_duration).  I've used the special value of -2 for
the reloption to have that cascade to using the GUC instead.  The
autovacuum_vacuum_insert_threshold reloption may be explicitly set to
-1 to disable autovacuums for inserts for the relation.

I've also knocked the default threshold down to 1000. I feel this is a
better value given that the scale factor is now 0.2. There seemed to
be no need to exclude smaller tables from seeing gains such as
index-only scans.

If nobody objects, I plan to push this one shortly.

David

Commits

  1. Further improve stability fix for partition_aggregate test.

  2. Improve stability fix for partition_aggregate test.

  3. Attempt to stabilize partitionwise_aggregate test

  4. Fix race condition in statext_store().

  5. Attempt to fix unstable regression tests, take 2

  6. Attempt to fix unstable regression tests

  7. Trigger autovacuum based on number of INSERTs

  8. Fix upper limit for vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor