Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pk9HO-0002Nk-3l for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 05 Apr 2023 19:58:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pk9HM-0000vt-Vo for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 05 Apr 2023 19:58:48 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pk9HM-0000vk-KW for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 05 Apr 2023 19:58:48 +0000 Received: from mail-lj1-x232.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::232]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pk9HG-0008GJ-6a for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 05 Apr 2023 19:58:47 +0000 Received: by mail-lj1-x232.google.com with SMTP id b6so18431312ljr.1 for ; Wed, 05 Apr 2023 12:58:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1680724720; x=1683316720; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=7dmOkmUlndU6kxU5AECBsya6FiUaUWCgx7DJfvrs+jY=; b=lXXNdI/glk9mbe4CQREa3s2aj1ohQD7tfOoH20FOTDNNUxfRBetoZs6HRUdHvo7Fry dj0k01mz0Z6LV/zDRgkSrqln1qVBomPy8BfuRnFgWmTKe6hn1TAn69Ot3zIiuNoNAR2p NnsnAeOxvaJ5BAuM9+ZM5CMAS6mGqcxeuK4IJlPp2/+y3BXaXjqk6NWM6UWGTrxwyXbk TbxcVJda//Unv2O2mGrnDrDYVJTIqk8SWcYQPY+6o2ULp3Y4Czv07ebm8wGr7sNfTW++ e4B0+siAQwbLye+W+363KOv4HVV0wcoolA/JZtPHW/CLo87PvqpAVQpB7S9TVZ819AVt R+LA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1680724720; x=1683316720; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=7dmOkmUlndU6kxU5AECBsya6FiUaUWCgx7DJfvrs+jY=; b=ZkN6MrnEP3prozE3kOE0wddMgvMTx3E7Ux20sd4Ya1MvG32Enxt6bsbNYstaJ5O5J5 DJtm839F3TPKj7luz6wgG9KXxSMmliz8wta9ERh9XD2aa5gXZ/uMy3sIctWoSydrnZtL vV9oRjJ46ULRoO49d5TDgPSCDfTJEvnGUDJ9YcZj8i67xEkVy35DoW++DEOXg6WmKvY5 FcFjYuVOafFTr1X3PrWOBfu0+fxKw1hcf45ytSGHLPynN2lU523EcO7lM56mPVtI87SN efvq1H7ej2hbUyGWv1rPMxH4D0Mf1tWXH9OQM8pAbC82iiOmjY6pMYmeBBVmJ8Vh2Fab a4XA== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9ddgnDmWbDVaS6HHepIk4ZilXAijRCFBhZD5VP3Lw97XtgPYXRL PvsMRKacyDLn2v0uQ+QFSNrbA6hgDa4caLFASbU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZRS886/Yr74b8qLUtfm3H4WRiO2ZGkgMLt6qihOJgaEE4BhhRFdxGVxVkm8mRRoxCqBfdxjuq8QybkR3/a67Y= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9dda:0:b0:2a6:199a:bd38 with SMTP id x26-20020a2e9dda000000b002a6199abd38mr2588721ljj.10.1680724719986; Wed, 05 Apr 2023 12:58:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20230329.132155.629765142788133576.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> <20230329.173456.1185961934810139447.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> <935191FB-083B-4060-89FC-466F61FAA391@yesql.se> <1252075.1680547394@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20230403190837.qubpnwugfe2k2g46@awork3.anarazel.de> <7E06F879-7E20-4A6A-862F-CA72CDC9A323@yesql.se> In-Reply-To: From: Robert Haas Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2023 15:58:28 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often To: Melanie Plageman Cc: Daniel Gustafsson , Andres Freund , Tom Lane , Masahiko Sawada , Kyotaro Horiguchi , PostgreSQL Hackers , Amit Kapila Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 3:44=E2=80=AFPM Melanie Plageman wrote: > VacuumUpdateCosts() also calls AutoVacuumUpdateCostLimit(), so this will > happen if a config reload is pending the next time vacuum_delay_point() > is called (which is pretty often -- roughly once per block vacuumed but > definitely more than once per table). > > Relevant code is at the top of vacuum_delay_point(): > > if (ConfigReloadPending && IsAutoVacuumWorkerProcess()) > { > ConfigReloadPending =3D false; > ProcessConfigFile(PGC_SIGHUP); > VacuumUpdateCosts(); > } Yeah, that all makes sense, and I did see that logic, but I'm struggling to reconcile it with what that comment says. Maybe I'm just confused about what that comment is trying to explain. --=20 Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com