| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Per table autovacuum vacuum cost limit behaviour strange |
| Date: | 2014-10-02 13:54:13 |
| Message-ID: | 20141002135412.GX5311@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> So in essence what we're going to do is that the balance mechanism
> considers only tables that don't have per-table configuration options;
> for those that do, we will use the values configured there without any
> changes.
>
> I'll see about implementing this and making sure it finds its way to
> 9.4beta3.
Here's a patch that makes it work as proposed.
How do people feel about back-patching this? On one hand it seems
there's a lot of fear of changing autovacuum behavior in back branches,
because for many production systems it has carefully been tuned; on the
other hand, it seems hard to believe that anyone has tuned the system to
work sanely given how insanely per-table options behave in the current
code.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| per_table_vacuum_para_v5.patch | text/x-diff | 4.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-10-02 13:58:11 | Re: WITH CHECK and Column-Level Privileges |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-10-02 13:48:01 | Re: NEXT VALUE FOR <sequence> |