public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Nathan Bossart <[email protected]>
To: Sami Imseih <[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, 29 Oct 2025 11:07:16 -0500
Message-ID: <aQI7tGEs8IOPxG64@nathan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA5RZ0uGbpaom3v+2K=bNuitnSGX_Lw4yPj3SbJdABYKgGur_A@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>
On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 10:24:17AM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> I think we do need some documentation about this behavior, which v6 is
> still missing.
Would you be interested in giving that part a try?
> Another thing I have been contemplating about is the change in prioritization
> and the resulting difference in the order in which tables are vacuumed
> is what it means for workloads in which autovacuum tuning that was
> done with the current assumptions will no longer be beneficial.
>
> Let's imagine staging tables that get created and dropped during
> some batch processing window and they see huge data
> ingestion/changes. The current scan will make these less of a priority
> naturally in relation to other permanent tables, but with the new priority,
> we are making these staging tables more of a priority. Users will now
> need to maybe turn off autovacuum on a per-table level to prevent this
> scenario. That is just one example.
>
> What I am also trying to say is should we provide a way, I hate
> to say a GUC, for users to go back to the old behavior? or am I
> overstating the risk here?
It's probably worth testing out this scenario, but I can't say I'm terribly
worried. Those kinds of tables are already getting chosen by autovacuum
earlier due to reltuples == -1, and this patch will just move them to the
front of the list that autovacuum creates. In any case, I'd really like to
avoid a GUC or fallback switch here.
--
nathan
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: <aQI7tGEs8IOPxG64@nathan>
* 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