| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me> |
| Cc: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel heap vacuum |
| Date: | 2025-09-17 23:22:02 |
| Message-ID: | xymq6plhuujm6rpb3hyqpwqkqo3q6kdx2a6nnei6sgpbzzj7lb@ejwunmymqgxb |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2025-09-17 13:25:11 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> I believe the reason why parallelism is disabled in autovacuum is that
> we want autovacuum to be a background process, with minimal disruption
> to user workload. It probably wouldn't be that hard to allow autovacuum
> to do parallel stuff, but it feels similar to adding autovacuum workers.
> That's rarely the solution, without increasing the cost limit.
I continue to find this argument extremely unconvincing. It's very common for
autovacuum to be continuously be busy with the one large table that has a
bunch of indexes. Vacuuming that one table is what prevents the freeze horizon
to move forward / prevents getting out of anti-wraparound territory in time.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2025-09-17 23:24:15 | Re: Parallel heap vacuum |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-09-17 23:20:20 | Re: Incorrect logic in XLogNeedsFlush() |