I had suggested something more that just cost limit, throttling which would
be re-startable vacuum -
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPdcCKpvZiRCoDxQoo9mXxXAK8w=bx5nqdttgzvhv2suxp0...@mail.gmail.com
.
It may not be difficult to predict patterns of idle periods with cloud
infrastructure and
Andy Fan writes:
>
>> - Longrunning transaction prevents increasing relfrozenxid, we run autovacuum
>> over and over on the same relation, using up the whole cost budget. This is
>> particularly bad because often we'll not autovacuum anything else, building
>> up a larger and larger backlog
Hi,
> Hi,
>
> On 2024-06-17 15:39:27 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> As I mentioned in my talk at 2024.pgconf.dev, I think that the biggest
>> problem with autovacuum as it exists today is that the cost delay is
>> sometimes too low to keep up with the amount of vacuuming that needs
>> to be done.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 01:32:38PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2024-06-18 13:50:46 -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> Have we ruled out further adjustments to the cost parameters as a first
>> step?
>
> I'm not against that, but I it doesn't address the issue that with the current
> logic one se
Hi,
On 2024-06-18 13:50:46 -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Have we ruled out further adjustments to the cost parameters as a first
> step?
I'm not against that, but I it doesn't address the issue that with the current
logic one set of values just isn't going to fit a 60MB that's allowed to burst
t
On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 03:39:27PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think we might able to get fairly far by observing that if the
> number of running autovacuum workers is equal to the maximum allowable
> number of running autovacuum workers, that may be a sign of trouble,
> and the longer that situa
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 at 07:39, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think we might able to get fairly far by observing that if the
> number of running autovacuum workers is equal to the maximum allowable
> number of running autovacuum workers, that may be a sign of trouble,
> and the longer that situation persis
On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 3:39 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> So, a very simple algorithm would be: If the maximum number of workers
> have been running continuously for more than, say,
> 10 minutes, assume we're falling behind
Hmm, I don't know about the validity of this. I've seen plenty of cases
wher
Hi,
On 2024-06-17 15:39:27 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> As I mentioned in my talk at 2024.pgconf.dev, I think that the biggest
> problem with autovacuum as it exists today is that the cost delay is
> sometimes too low to keep up with the amount of vacuuming that needs
> to be done.
I agree it's a
