| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Gould <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #13750: Autovacuum slows down with large numbers of tables. More workers makes it slower. |
| Date: | 2015-11-13 19:24:57 |
| Message-ID: | 56463909.6060506@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 11/06/2015 04:46 PM, David Gould wrote:
>> 3. Do we want to backpatch? Changes in behavior aren't acceptable on
>> > existing branches, because it might destabilize autovacuum behavior
>> > that's been carefully tuned in existing systems. So if we want
>> > something to backpatch, ideally it shouldn't change the ordering in
>> > which tables are vacuumed, and instead arrive at the same results
>> > faster. (I don't care about this restriction myself, but others do and
>> > strongly so.)
> The current order of autovacuum operations is the physical order of the
> rows in pg_class plus some jitter depending on which worker is able to grab
> a table first. It seems unlikely anything could depend on this
> particular order.
I don't know anyone who depends on the ordering of autovacuum, because
nobody knows what it is. It's not exactly documented.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2015-11-13 19:30:05 | Re: postgresql downgrade issue |
| Previous Message | Michael Meskes | 2015-11-13 07:44:30 | Re: connect to C |