Subject: Re: Changing the autovacuum launcher scheduling; oldest table first algorithm

From: Dmitry Dolgov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 18:21:34 +0100

> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 4:42 AM Michael Paquier <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 04:20:53PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > If there is an up-to-date information meaning either that there is no
> > tables needing vacuum or that there is only table needing vacuum but
> > being vacuumed by other worker, AV launcher can launches new one to
> > other database.
>
> I am not completely sure what we want to do with this patch in
> particular as there are many approaches and things which can be
> discussed.  For now, the latest patch proposed does not apply, so I am
> moving it to next CF, waiting for its author.

Nothing changed since then, but also the patch got not enough review to say
that there was substantial feedback. I'll move it to the next CF.

---

From: Michael Paquier <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 10:48:00 +0900

> that there was substantial feedback. I'll move it to the next CF.

I would have suggested to mark the patch as returned with feedback
instead as the thing does not apply for some time now, and the author
has been notified about a rebase.
--
Michael

---

From: Masahiko Sawada <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 11:00:42 +0900

> has been notified about a rebase.

Agreed and sorry for the late reply.

The design of this patch would need to be reconsidered based on
suggestions and discussions we had before. I'll propose it again after
considerations.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

---

From: Dmitry Dolgov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 10:40:09 +0100

> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 3:05 AM Masahiko Sawada <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

Well, taking into account this information, then yes, it makes sense and I'll
mark it as "Returned with feedback", thanks!