On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 11:19:05AM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote: > I suppose it would be silly to allow even lower values for > autovacuum_naptime (e.g., by moving it to ConfigureNamesReal and setting > the minimum to 0.1).
I've thought about that as well, and did not mention it as this would encourage insanely low naptime values resulting in fork() bursts. > That's a neat trick. I was confused why this test generates an autovacuum > worker at all, but I now see that you are pausing it before we even gather > the list of tables that need to be vacuumed. Yep. More aggressive signals aren't going to help. One thing I also considered here is to manipulate the db list timestamps inside a USE_INJECTION_POINTS block in the launcher to make the spawn more aggressive. Anyway, with 600ms in detection where I've tested it, I can live with the responsiveness of the patch as proposed. > Looks reasonable to me. Thanks. I'll see about stressing the buildfarm tomorrow or so, after looking at how the CI reacts. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
