From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often |
Date: | 2023-02-28 01:21:37 |
Message-ID: | 20230228012137.axkohdhzv6du4wbx@awork3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-02-27 23:11:53 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> As far as I know there are not such GUC parameters in the core but
> there might be in third-party table AM and index AM extensions.
We already reload in a pretty broad range of situations, so I'm not sure
there's a lot that could be unsafe that isn't already.
> Also, I'm concerned that allowing to change any GUC parameters during
> vacuum/analyze could be a foot-gun in the future. When modifying
> vacuum/analyze-related codes, we have to consider the case where any GUC
> parameters could be changed during vacuum/analyze.
What kind of scenario are you thinking of?
> I guess it would be better to apply the parameter changes for only vacuum
> delay related parameters. For example, autovacuum launcher advertises the
> values of the vacuum delay parameters on the shared memory not only for
> autovacuum processes but also for manual vacuum/analyze processes. Both
> processes can update them accordingly in vacuum_delay_point().
I don't think this is a good idea. It'd introduce a fair amount of complexity
without, as far as I can tell, a benefit.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | kuroda.keisuke | 2023-02-28 02:07:52 | Re: pg_rewind: warn when checkpoint hasn't happened after promotion |
Previous Message | Peter Smith | 2023-02-28 01:12:03 | Re: Rework LogicalOutputPluginWriterUpdateProgress |