public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Sami Imseih <[email protected]>
To: Nathan Bossart <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Treat <[email protected]>
Cc: David Rowley <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: Jeremy Schneider <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2025 16:10:22 -0600
Message-ID: <CAA5RZ0uf31FQ41udQGL91sp3GdaLqcbwO103Q-zJQcJowq7fEw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aRTpqMleDpoQm9OO@nathan>
References: <CAApHDvoCFQxaQjUncTAtCRFAeANe2tpc-WCkJue=FaXRYOkV=Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA5RZ0sw+9rEaW9taNpRZWvuLYMjRa9iibneGfB2ftNSUHT0Ww@mail.gmail.com>
<CAApHDvq_j+GVqX_ZAmvn236Mgg5OYQ6_s9kVsyoo1tJa2RJ=2w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA5RZ0udjEYJupob5tv3286e28bMpajgsy+4nAbxg73YyigZFw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAApHDvq9ecYSetXUhjMc7E_Jcc7gxxRkA0LosX9PP1-jM_Ak8A@mail.gmail.com>
<aRNmEPQ18qZlLowV@nathan>
<CAApHDvrtvMF3_W69hOUr2SnbizjC1jc68_Ca0nPYr=+VUkUkAw@mail.gmail.com>
<aROY-MUVO_mYTl2f@nathan>
<CAApHDvpo3YxiaP123vghHL-aLkY2vc-e1scpDSpaTFWz1qVaQA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABV9wwOcD4RM5Hm0d+=KBK8LyHLtEtF3YZ4ak8V3VvOYV9Z4Tw@mail.gmail.com>
<aRTpqMleDpoQm9OO@nathan>
> I do think re-prioritization is worth considering, but IMHO we should leave
> it out of phase 1. I think it's pretty easy to reason about one round of
> prioritization being okay. The order is completely arbitrary today, so how
> could ordering by vacuum-related criteria make things any worse?
While it’s true that the current table order is arbitrary, that arbitrariness
naturally helps distribute vacuum work across tables of various sizes
at a given time
The proposal now is by design forcing all the top bloated table, that
will require more I/O to vacuum to be vacuumed at the same time,
by all workers. Users may observe this after they upgrade and wonder
why their I/O profile changed and perhaps slowed others non-vacuum
related processing down. They also don't have a knob to go back to
the previous behavior.
Of course, this behavior can and will happen now, but with this
prioritization, we are forcing it.
Is this a concern?
--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)
view thread (143+ messages) latest in thread
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: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread
In-Reply-To: <CAA5RZ0uf31FQ41udQGL91sp3GdaLqcbwO103Q-zJQcJowq7fEw@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox