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

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Per table autovacuum vacuum cost limit behaviour strange
Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 18:27:47 +1200
Message-ID: <53672F63.3080400@catalyst.net.nz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA4eK1LwFs9iM-rUdfOrZE5MvjSxMM9ZbPbzv1SeWgGYu-O=VQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52FACF15.8020507@catalyst.net.nz>
	<CAJrrPGcvOD5OPoWCGcNdzdgbs-46gsbYHTibagy0xkRBg0bDaA@mail.gmail.com>
	<52FC4AA6.50803@catalyst.net.nz>
	<CAJrrPGeDEYpvHoR4m-cs2Ct9wTC3bqurreHNyVGC8smS7eig+g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140214213227.GF6342@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org>
	<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>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>

On 05/05/14 15:22, Amit Kapila wrote:

> Here what I could understand is that sum of cost_limit for all
> autovacuum workers should never exceed the value of
> autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit which seems to be always the
> case in current code but same is not true for proposed patch.
>

Right, but have a look at the 1st message in this thread - the current 
behavior (and to a large extent the above condition) means that setting
cost limits per table does not work in any remotely intuitive way.

ITSM that the whole purpose of a per table setting in this context is to 
override the behavior of auto vacuum throttling - and currently this 
does not happen unless you get real brutal (i.e setting the cost delay 
to zero in addition to setting cost limit...making the whole cost limit 
a bit pointless).

regards

Mark


-- 
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: <53672F63.3080400@catalyst.net.nz>
Permalink:  ../53672F63.3080400@catalyst.net.nz/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/53672F63.3080400@catalyst.net.nz

 · 

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: mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz, amit.kapila16@gmail.com, kommi.haribabu@gmail.com, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com
  Subject: Re: Per table autovacuum vacuum cost limit behaviour strange
  In-Reply-To: <53672F63.3080400@catalyst.net.nz>

* 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