Horton

Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often

John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>
To: Jim Nasby <nasbyj@amazon.com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Date: 2023-03-09T07:47:19Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 12:42 AM Jim Nasby <nasbyj@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> Doesn't the dead tuple space grow as needed? Last I looked we don't
allocate up to 1GB right off the bat.

Incorrect.

> Of course, if the patch that eliminates the 1GB vacuum limit gets
committed the situation will be even worse.

If you're referring to the proposed tid store, I'd be interested in seeing
a reproducible test case with a m_w_m over 1GB where it makes things worse
than the current state of affairs.

--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

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