public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: David Rowley <[email protected]>
To: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <[email protected]>
Cc: Jeremy Schneider <[email protected]>
Cc: Sami Imseih <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2025 19:27:10 +1300
Message-ID: <CAApHDvqrd=SHVUytdRj55OWnLH98Rvtzqam5zq2f4XKRZa7t9Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoYC4ShRp8vcyrBjkefSBdFfY1fnUgCvjocN-iq55G-7bA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <aOaAuXREwnPZVISO@nathan>
<CAA5RZ0ucgx6VgVCUYryZY33StMtHSpoND_7wEFjGCVCSjouUsA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAApHDvo3maZsrZVq=Bur=Z6Gtse4asSEgHU0HzBhhcTfM-AfeA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAApHDvpMEs3rewULyJZ=huT8ZM1C1PboV-G7K7jfGtJSgdx-fA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAApHDvq76BBseUh2cG0=m=8r-j6HF_jrQt16Eszgsxp3bciGQw@mail.gmail.com>
<aOffPCBoQLG5dGd8@nathan>
<aOlC4aDoQcgW8ZpC@nathan>
<CA+TgmoYC4ShRp8vcyrBjkefSBdFfY1fnUgCvjocN-iq55G-7bA@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 at 07:43, Robert Haas <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think this is a reasonable starting point, although I'm surprised
> that you chose to combine the sub-scores using + rather than Max.
Adding up the component scores doesn't make sense to me either. That
means you could have 0.5 for inserted tuples, 0.5 for dead tuples and,
say 0.1 for analyze threshold, which all add up to 1.1, but neither
component score is high enough for auto-vacuum to have to do anything
yet. With Max(), we'd clearly see that there's nothing to do since the
overall score isn't >= 1.0.
> - The wraparound score can't be more than about 10, but the bloat
> score could be arbitrarily large, especially for tables with few
> tuples, so there may be lots of cases in which the wraparound score
> has no impact on the behavior.
That's a good point. I think we definitely do want to make it so
tables in near danger of causing the database to stop accepting
transactions are dealt with ASAP.
Maybe the score calculation could change when the relevant age() goes
above vacuum_failsafe_age / vacuum_multixact_failsafe_age and start
scaling it very aggressively beyond that. There's plenty to debate,
but at a first cut, maybe something like the following (coded in SQL
for ease of result viewing):
select xidage as "age(relfrozenxid)",case xidage::float8 <
current_setting('vacuum_failsafe_age')::float8 when true then xidage /
current_setting('autovacuum_freeze_max_age')::float8 else power(xidage
/ current_setting('autovacuum_freeze_max_age')::float8,xidage::float8
/ 100_000_000) end xid_age_score from
generate_series(0,2_000_000_000,100_000_000) xidage;
which gives 1e+20 for age of 2 billion. It would take quite an
unreasonable amount of bloat to score higher than that.
I guess someone might argue that we should start taking it more
seriously before the table's relfrozenxid age gets to
vacuum_failsafe_age. Maybe that's true. I just don't know what. In any
case, if a table's age gets that old, then something's probably not
configured very well and needs attention. I did think maybe we could
keep the addressing of auto-vacuum being configured to run too slowly
as a separate thread.
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]
Subject: Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread
In-Reply-To: <CAApHDvqrd=SHVUytdRj55OWnLH98Rvtzqam5zq2f4XKRZa7t9Q@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