| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeremy Schneider <schneider(at)ardentperf(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread |
| Date: | 2025-11-11 20:16:37 |
| Message-ID: | aROZpUyN1r24WyQ3@nathan |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 02:50:55PM -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 2:49 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 02:43:19PM -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
>> > FWIW, when I have built these types of systems in the past, and when I
>> > wanted an aggressive recheck-type mechanism, the most common methods
>> > involved tying it to autovacuum_max_workers.
>>
>> Would you mind elaborating on this point? Do you mean that you'd rebuild
>> the list every a_m_w tables, or something else?
>
> Yes.
Interesting. With our defaults, that would mean rebuilding the list every
few tables, which seems quite aggressive. I'd start worrying about the
pg_class scanning overhead a little...
--
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sami Imseih | 2025-11-11 20:25:36 | Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-11-11 20:13:44 | Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread |