From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Decoupling antiwraparound autovacuum from special rules around auto cancellation |
Date: | 2023-01-20 13:47:18 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ7hwifyr6WnBvK6D9d+c4=DqDedrTDhVH03+Az_gTY_w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 5:51 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> I don't agree. But mainly my issue is that the devil you know (how this has
> worked for a while) is preferrable to introducing an unknown quantity (your
> patch that hasn't yet seen real world exposure).
Yeah, this is a major reason why I'm very leery about changes in this
area. A lot of autovacuum behavior is emergent, in the sense that it
wasn't directly intended by whoever wrote the code. It's just a
consequence of other decisions that probably seemed very reasonable at
the time they were made but turned out to have surprising and
unpleasant consequences.
In this particular case, I think that there is a large risk that
postponing auto-cancellation will make things significantly worse,
possibly drastically worse, for a certain class of users -
specifically, those whose vacuums often get auto-cancelled. I think
that it's actually pretty common for people to have workloads where
something pretty close to all of the autovacuums get auto-cancelled on
certain tables, and those people are always hard up against
autovacuum_freeze_max_age because they *have* to hit that in order to
get any vacuuming done on the affected tables. If the default
threshold for auto-cancellation goes up, those people will be
vacuuming even less often than they are now.
That's why I really liked your idea of decoupling auto-cancellation
from XID age. Such an approach can still avoid disabling
auto-cancellation just because autovacuum_freeze_max_age has been hit,
but it can also disable it much earlier when it detects that doing so
is necessary to make progress.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2023-01-20 13:54:27 | Re: Add SHELL_EXIT_CODE to psql |
Previous Message | Dag Lem | 2023-01-20 13:45:40 | Re: daitch_mokotoff module |