Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 13:21:55 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <20230329.132155.629765142788133576.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
To: melanieplageman@gmail.com
Cc: sawada.mshk@gmail.com, daniel@yesql.se, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
 andres@anarazel.de, amit.kapila16@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230329.120908.350115307125624430.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
References: <20230328.172147.1984729741959637354.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
	<CAAKRu_ZnG2nYcvzb4a-CGwg33_4RX83qitGGVmjhHZZtqeSrRA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20230329.120908.350115307125624430.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 26.1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230329.132155.629765142788133576.horikyota.ntt%40gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

At Wed, 29 Mar 2023 12:09:08 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote in 
> timeing perfectly. I think we might accidentally add a reload
> timing. In that case, the assumption could break. In most cases, I
> think we use snapshotting in various ways to avoid unintended variable
> changes. (And I beilieve the analyze code also does that.)

Okay, I was missing the following code.

autovacuum.c:2893
		/*
		 * If any of the cost delay parameters has been set individually for
		 * this table, disable the balancing algorithm.
		 */
		tab->at_dobalance =
			!(avopts && (avopts->vacuum_cost_limit > 0 ||
						 avopts->vacuum_cost_delay > 0));

So, sorry for the noise. I'll review it while this into cnosideration.

regards.

-- 
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center