public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]>
To: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: Melanie Plageman <[email protected]>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <[email protected]>
Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <[email protected]>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Cc: Amit Kapila <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2023 13:19:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CAH2-WznhA5T3Dh=ic6Ev0jRWX7=oqJvBduqA9-Aa-TabW2vT6g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoYDYHht9zsHye3tywx7oWGMP4s_6AGefHkDsMuGHLzT7w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAAKRu_Yg4-kWH_EN7wtpm3z9B+H27UTmOxzzYv1Vg=YdZ6v_rw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAD21AoCGdxYAJHmE_nXw_MFw1+Qtn3vcThRu5FiadukgQnpWeQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAAKRu_aoa0YT36q2n3xa9MZYdepeH4Jyf2EVJj=7YdC_1c974Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAKRu_bSsChKsyEy1ZV2XJQ22FoDdA56efjNr9==m2TO94557w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAD21AoDi4i4tj1Cf9BG0q2iyVhHisQ2xxVBZajEqExX6t6_b3g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAKRu_bkg+0WAGTxsy0HP75RzFbPwqz3ctYq1kThjFhSL69upw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAAKRu_ap7nhmqtKQ1TRo3LzHG3FK=YpGO=O0019M3BbN7ysm3A@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAAKRu_b1HjGCTsFpUnmwLNS8NeXJ+JnrDLhT1osP+Gq9HCU+Rw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAAKRu_bJ2DJxYoMkyMo9UpoX74LY5d2Jir86QWFUftrGKWP5Bw@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+TgmoYDYHht9zsHye3tywx7oWGMP4s_6AGefHkDsMuGHLzT7w@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 11:56 AM Robert Haas <[email protected]> wrote:
> To be honest, I think that the whole system where we divide the cost
> limit across the workers is the wrong idea. Does anyone actually like
> that behavior? This patch probably shouldn't touch that, just in the
> interest of getting something done that is an improvement over where
> we are now, but I think this behavior is really counterintuitive.
> People expect that they can increase autovacuum_max_workers to get
> more vacuuming done, and actually in most cases that does not work.
I disagree. Increasing autovacuum_max_workers as a method of
increasing the overall aggressiveness of autovacuum seems like the
wrong idea. I'm sure that users do that at times, but they really
ought to have a better way of getting the same result.
ISTM that autovacuum_max_workers confuses the question of what the
maximum possible number of workers should ever be (in extreme cases)
with the question of how many workers might be a good idea given
present conditions.
> And if that behavior didn't exist, this patch would also be a whole
> lot simpler.
Probably, but the fact remains that the system level view of things is
mostly what matters. The competition between the amount of vacuuming
that we can afford to do right now and the amount of vacuuming that
we'd ideally be able to do really matters. In fact, I'd argue that the
amount of vacuuming that we'd ideally be able to do isn't a
particularly meaningful concept on its own. It's just too hard to
model what we need to do accurately -- emphasizing what we can afford
to do seems much more promising.
> Again, I don't think this is something we should try to
> address right now under time pressure, but in the future, I think we
> should consider ripping this behavior out.
-1. The delay stuff might not work as well as it should, but it at
least seems like roughly the right idea. The bigger problem seems to
be everything else -- the way that tuning autovacuum_max_workers kinda
makes sense (it shouldn't be an interesting tunable), and the problems
with the autovacuum.c scheduling being so primitive.
--
Peter Geoghegan
view thread (27+ 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], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often
In-Reply-To: <CAH2-WznhA5T3Dh=ic6Ev0jRWX7=oqJvBduqA9-Aa-TabW2vT6g@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