| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <jnasby(at)upgrade(dot)com>, Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Burd <greg(at)burd(dot)me>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>, Jeremy Schneider <schneider(at)ardentperf(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread |
| Date: | 2026-03-25 22:00:24 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvrD9YZ8RBgb6NDtzyay1PsFReLvWHVqUCMFw1=qxM1N1g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 at 10:18, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 02:12:16PM -0700, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > Would it make sense to recompute scores and re-sort the remaining
> > table list after each table is processed in do_autovacuum()'s main
> > loop - say, after a certain amount of time spent vacuuming the large
> > table(s)? This would catch the above scenarios. I see that the scores
> > per table are being calculated in relation_needs_vacanalyze, but they
> > are ignored in the recheck path (table_recheck_autovac ->
> > recheck_relation_needs_vacanalyze -> relation_needs_vacanalyze).
>
> I think this was discussed a bit upthread, and we decided to leave it out
> for now. But things like reprioritization and automatic cost limit
> adjustments seem worth considering for v20.
Agreed. I think the reason you mentioned in [1] was a good reason not
to do this.
There are also other autovacuum workers that may be calculating a more
up-to-date list. They may well process the table that's increased
score before the worker with the slightly stale list makes it there.
That seems fine and natural to me.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2026-03-25 22:06:14 | Re: LockHasWaiters() crashes on fast-path locks |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2026-03-25 21:58:46 | Re: Don't synchronously wait for already-in-progress IO in read stream |