Re: [DOC] Document auto vacuum interruption

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [DOC] Document auto vacuum interruption
Date: 2019-09-18 04:55:06
Message-ID: CAA4eK1Lm3qqBmvpf+Emh3v83b0Qguegy4q5LLY-jCKcyk=yJtg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 5:48 PM James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 2:21 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Let me know what you think of attached? I think we can back-patch
> > this patch. What do you think? Does anyone else have an opinion on
> > this patch especially if we see any problem in back-patching this?
>
> The attached looks great!
>
> I was working on HEAD for the patch, but this concern has been an
> issue for quite a long time. We were running into it on 9.6 in
> production, for example. And given how frequently it seems like there
> are large-scale production issues related to auto vacuum, I think any
> amount of back patching we can do to make that footgun less likely
> would be a good thing.
>

Okay, I will commit this tomorrow unless someone has any comments or objections.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fabien COELHO 2019-09-18 05:01:30 Re: pgbench - allow to create partitioned tables
Previous Message jungle boogie 2019-09-18 04:55:03 Re: scorpionfly needs more semaphores