pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Per table autovacuum vacuum cost limit behaviour strange
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 19:16:44 -0300
Message-ID: <20140930221644.GR5311@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+Tgmoav37msTP0pVsrEYz4LBYU6SETMZGYTgPo5AEOC0yCMbA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJrrPGcpZ5g5snz0PO4EEKFkTAD=uJi0VF6ruW25Mh0F34rPDw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJrrPGdK=nhTHUCsURgXQyG6RH=rJ8b4CdYhzGhwH=UuzaO9Ng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAA4eK1JALkZOLnGdpqQgKbb+vq0eri1b7ytDfZLA8E9ZM35NHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJrrPGeEwsezwA6+DpA2Y7MBJmEnNWwD5Gi4Ve_EqCxHoyHj3Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAA4eK1LwFs9iM-rUdfOrZE5MvjSxMM9ZbPbzv1SeWgGYu-O=VQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<53672F63.3080400@catalyst.net.nz>
	<CAA4eK1KDAUP=g59ku_0ekDoRjaGfEamyadQn5rJVt3j5oErLXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<53686F22.8030300@catalyst.net.nz>
	<20140826161911.GE6343@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org>
	<CA+Tgmoav37msTP0pVsrEYz4LBYU6SETMZGYTgPo5AEOC0yCMbA@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>

Robert Haas wrote:

> I favor option (a).   There's something to be said for your proposal
> in terms of logical consistency with what we have now, but to be
> honest I'm not sure it's the behavior anyone wants (I would welcome
> more feedback on what people actually want).  I think we should view
> an attempt to set a limit for a particular table as a way to control
> the rate at which that table is vacuumed - period.

After re-reading this whole thread one more time, I think I have come to
agree with you and Amit here, because not only it is simpler to
implement, but it is also simpler to document.  Per Greg Smith's opinion
elsewhere in the thread, it seems that for end users it doesn't make
sense to make the already complicated mechanism even more complicated.

So in essence what we're going to do is that the balance mechanism
considers only tables that don't have per-table configuration options;
for those that do, we will use the values configured there without any
changes.

I'll see about implementing this and making sure it finds its way to
9.4beta3.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers



view thread (40+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <20140930221644.GR5311@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org>
Permalink:  ../20140930221644.GR5311@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/20140930221644.GR5311@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz, amit.kapila16@gmail.com, kommi.haribabu@gmail.com
  Subject: Re: Per table autovacuum vacuum cost limit behaviour strange
  In-Reply-To: <20140930221644.GR5311@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox