public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Sami Imseih <[email protected]>
To: David Rowley <[email protected]>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: Jeremy Schneider <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2025 14:53:55 -0600
Message-ID: <CAA5RZ0uox-mBjkCGq+yrzh1YRsroSU-SJcmfjmCepDm+pKHM-w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAApHDvoBZu-oEsRV+QzVACkQCdGxm5Q7RSs_q+J+G27EObS+zA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAApHDvoM5MEHHBc0TNdrzkpq39WdEHSZhdWrtnx9zOWNXTSFGw@mail.gmail.com>
<aP-YgrcPi0EhgR9x@nathan>
<CAApHDvpOq09uVq7aXcuSBPAhZBTfAL-m2c4FOF2PphFe-YcnRg@mail.gmail.com>
<aQEvm40W3aVizp5Q@nathan>
<CAA5RZ0sdhUjVVKYbBGs1qFsYC3-Mn+as=K5v8ydVGR5iziabFQ@mail.gmail.com>
<aQI39ln_jZ8qorLE@nathan>
<CA+Tgmoa_5aC0w1fG7pLhev+F-GtRhQ2OzePy7t059c9JTnvjow@mail.gmail.com>
<aQPSYD11NDoREZsg@nathan>
<CAA5RZ0uo-nU9KqgXV5Tcf8aWWQkxsb5BDpkb-2Qfwbw-UVVaUA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA5RZ0tpV3PRHejTGG5-LSsqNKKV0qP=SDvurs8wj7pTk7jYJw@mail.gmail.com>
<aQUYP1WjrEP3buQz@nathan>
<CAApHDvqe7ee=vobWe4GVAt2gm_H6eiGNZeo_dEMptvHYAkibBA@mail.gmail.com>
<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>
<CAA5RZ0sJGg209gSpEzLpO3DPiF8r8n_xVbQDnd_92BV+-5kvDA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAApHDvoBZu-oEsRV+QzVACkQCdGxm5Q7RSs_q+J+G27EObS+zA@mail.gmail.com>
> > The thing I’m hoping to address is something I’ve seen many times in practice.
> > Autovacuum workers can get stuck on specific large or slow tables, and when
> > that happens, users often end up running manual vacuums on those tables
> > just to keep things moving for the smaller/faster vacuumed tables.
> >
> > Now, I am not so sure any type of autovacuum prioritization could actually
> > help in these cases. What does help is adding more autovacuum workers.
>
> Thanks for explaining. I think the scoring system in Nathan's patch
> helps with this as any smaller table which are neglected continue to
> bloat, and because they're smaller, the score will increase more
> quickly,
That is true.
> Maybe we can have it configurable so that 1 worker can be
> configured to not work on tables above a given size, so there's at
> least 1 worker that is less likely to be tied up for extended periods
> of time. I don't know if that's a good idea, and also don't know what
> realistic values for "given size" are.
Another approach will be to signal for more autovacuum workers to
be spun up ( user can have a minimum and max workers ) if all workers
has been processing the list for a long time ( Also not sure what the
long threshold would be ). This "auto-tuning" of workers could perhaps
reduce the need for manual vacuums. It will still not prevent all workers
from being tied up, but maybe reduce the likelihood.
--
Sami
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]
Subject: Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread
In-Reply-To: <CAA5RZ0uox-mBjkCGq+yrzh1YRsroSU-SJcmfjmCepDm+pKHM-w@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