Horton

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

Darafei Komяpa Praliaskouski <me@komzpa.net>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski <me@komzpa.net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-03-31T10:30:12Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
>
> If it's months, we probably want limit vacuum to working at a pretty
> slow rate, say 1% of the table size per hour or something.  If it's in
> hours, we need to be a lot more aggressive.  Right now we have no
> information to tell us which of those things is the case, so we'd just
> be shooting in the dark.


Thing is, you don't need to spread out your vacuum in time if the rate of
vacuuming matches rate of table growth. Can we mark tuples/pages as
all-visible and all-frozen say, the moment they're pushed out of
shared_buffers?


-- 
Darafei Praliaskouski
Support me: http://patreon.com/komzpa

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