| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Frédéric Yhuel <frederic(dot)yhuel(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: New GUC autovacuum_max_threshold ? |
| Date: | 2024-04-26 13:22:32 |
| Message-ID: | 06b361a6-094c-4d78-b4c9-b102e270d97e@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/26/24 04:43, Michael Banck wrote:
> So this proposal (probably along with a higher default threshold than
> 500000, but IMO less than what Robert and Nathan suggested) sounds like
> a stop forward to me. DBAs can set the threshold lower if they want, or
> maybe we can just turn it off by default if we cannot agree on a sane
> default, but I think this (using the simplified formula from Nathan) is
> a good approach that takes some pain away from autovacuum tuning and
> reserves that for the really difficult cases.
+1 to the above
Although I don't think 500000 is necessarily too small. In my view,
having autovac run very quickly, even if more frequently, provides an
overall better user experience.
--
Joe Conway
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-04-26 13:27:23 | Re: New GUC autovacuum_max_threshold ? |
| Previous Message | Jacob Champion | 2024-04-26 13:11:06 | Re: New committers: Melanie Plageman, Richard Guo |