This is a list of things people mentioned as interesting to do for
vacuum/autovacuum, during the last autovacuum discussion thread. Some
of them are wishful thinking, others are doable.
Neil, Gavin: both of you mentioned that you didn't like autovacuum as a
long term solution. May I ask you if you have more suggestions for this
* Enable autovacuum by default.
Get some field experience with it first, so the worst bugs are covered.
(Has anybody tested it?)
* Add per-table vacuum delay parameters.
* Integrate the FSM with autovacuum.
Maybe invent the concept of a "dead space map". This could be a bitmap per
heap segment, where we keep a bit set for each page in the segment that has
* Make the decision taking about what database to vacuum be smarter.
Right now, we only consider what database was least recently vacuumed.
We could have a per-database counter of dead tuples in pgstats; we have
to figure out a way to use that and not cause starvation for less-used
* Make XID wraparound issues be determined on a per-table basis.
* Implement some sort of maintenance window where vacuum policy would be
more aggresive. Maybe the reverse: specify some hours at which vacuum
should not run at all.
One alternative for this is to suggest changing autovacuum parameters from
a script to be run by cron or pgAgent.
* Implement partial vacuums.
A partial vacuum would scan only a portion of the table looking for dead
tuples, then stop. Or maybe not partial, but instead vacuum a portion,
then stop, release locks, sleep for a while, then continue with the rest.
* Have autovacuum daemons per-database or per-tablespace.
* Use REINDEX instead of updating the index for each tuple, if the dead
tuple count is too high.
* Stop a running VACUUM if the system load is too high.
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]alvh.no-ip.org>)
"La verdad no siempre es bonita, pero el hambre de ella sí"
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: David Fetter||Date: 2005-07-28 00:25:32|
|Subject: Re: Some new list.c primitives|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-07-28 00:12:10|
|Subject: Re: Sanity Check? |