public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: David Rowley <[email protected]>
To: wenhui qiu <[email protected]>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <[email protected]>
Cc: Sami Imseih <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: Jeremy Schneider <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 23:36:25 +1300
Message-ID: <CAApHDvohuOypudeuj7nVb9XCyg=u2JR2j00j4zYPGzBjn78piA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGjGUA+ZJR0wxciBqXTpGs724k8oToseJ-n0AM-jo5cNRX56DQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAApHDvp1=FOs6GneTzLSCHnCmC7z1_80=U3M=CKd82-pwS3YHg@mail.gmail.com>
<aPuWev3D9M4iGCUt@nathan>
<CAApHDvoM5MEHHBc0TNdrzkpq39WdEHSZhdWrtnx9zOWNXTSFGw@mail.gmail.com>
<aP-YgrcPi0EhgR9x@nathan>
<CAA5RZ0u2Mbks+O2DKBYen94AH3OMUcg+A7wvxrXYkmjTddBx4g@mail.gmail.com>
<aP_g61kSkGAQOu3F@nathan>
<CAA5RZ0sybfRyKp+DY+r=2U+-r7HfSF4GL1oVOOcVtEWmk2ewUw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAApHDvpVE5F-_8rpPC+-L98mA0yK0S_jtQGqLn69fkRevf726g@mail.gmail.com>
<aQEwRD5XW4wfJE6G@nathan>
<CAA5RZ0uGbpaom3v+2K=bNuitnSGX_Lw4yPj3SbJdABYKgGur_A@mail.gmail.com>
<aQI7tGEs8IOPxG64@nathan>
<CAGjGUAJ-XqLN6VU+HeXn0iooiJrrnN4Pqp+xVU8VKKNsZcfR2w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAApHDvrhEH8okuL+WVHxrC_W7JBSuvk6A5i3mzmrGTgp4RAvqg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAGjGUA+ZJR0wxciBqXTpGs724k8oToseJ-n0AM-jo5cNRX56DQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 at 19:48, wenhui qiu <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think there might be some misunderstanding — I’m only suggesting changing
> effective_xid_failsafe_age = Max(vacuum_failsafe_age,
> autovacuum_freeze_max_age * 1.05);
> to
> effective_xid_failsafe_age = (vacuum_failsafe_age + autovacuum_freeze_max_age) / 2.0;
> In the current logic, effective_xid_failsafe_age is almost always equal to vacuum_failsafe_age.
> As a result, increasing the vacuum priority only when a table’s age reaches vacuum_failsafe_age is too late.
I understand your proposal. The autovacuum will trigger for the
wraparound at autovacuum_freeze_max_age, so for autovacuum still not
to have gotten to the table by the time the table is aged at
vacuum_failsafe_age, it means autovacuum isn't working quickly enough
to get through the workload, therefore the problem is with the speed
of autovacuum not the priority of autovacuum.
David
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: <CAApHDvohuOypudeuj7nVb9XCyg=u2JR2j00j4zYPGzBjn78piA@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