Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often

From: John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Jim Nasby <nasbyj(at)amazon(dot)com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Subject: Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often
Date: 2023-03-09 07:47:19
Message-ID: CAFBsxsGLDxNus6=8LiQihrjvOrZuu7JdpC3ykDk2vzciTU6m+A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 12:42 AM Jim Nasby <nasbyj(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Doesn't the dead tuple space grow as needed? Last I looked we don't
allocate up to 1GB right off the bat.

Incorrect.

> Of course, if the patch that eliminates the 1GB vacuum limit gets
committed the situation will be even worse.

If you're referring to the proposed tid store, I'd be interested in seeing
a reproducible test case with a m_w_m over 1GB where it makes things worse
than the current state of affairs.

--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Drouvot, Bertrand 2023-03-09 08:20:39 Re: Track IO times in pg_stat_io
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2023-03-09 07:09:49 Re: Raising the SCRAM iteration count