Alvaro, Thanks for the insight, was really helpful!
Best, Martín On Fri, Sep 14th, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > > On 2018-Sep-13, Martín Fernández wrote: > > > By performing this changes we are going to start relying more heavily > > on the autovacuum work and the concern of "lost work" caused by > > autovacuum canceling itself when locking contention happen showed up. > > I'm guessing that we might be over thinking this and the canceling is > > not going to happen as frequently as we think it will. > > Any DDL run on a table will cancel an autovacuum over that table (except > for-wraparound autovacuums). If these are rare, you don't need to worry > about that too much. If they are frequent enough that autovacuum will > be cancelled regularly in one table, you'll be sad. > > If you're running vacuum by hand, you'd probably see your DDL blocking > behind VACUUM, which would be very noticeable. I think if you don't > have trouble today without having tuned the system carefully to avoid > such trouble, you're not likely to have trouble with autovacuum either. > > -- > Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ > PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services > > > >
