From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Disable autovacuum guc? |
Date: | 2016-10-20 02:22:52 |
Message-ID: | 1b13e7f4-c0af-8f54-44fe-e3c99cb112ed@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/19/2016 06:27 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Hello,
>
> After all these years, we are still regularly running into people who
> say, "performance was bad so we disabled autovacuum". I am not talking
> about once in a while, it is often. I would like us to consider removing
> the autovacuum option. Here are a few reasons:
>
> 1. It does not hurt anyone
> 2. It removes a foot gun
> 3. Autovacuum is *not* optional, we shouldn't let it be
> 4. People could still disable it at the table level for those tables
> that do fall into the small window of, no maintenance is o.k.
> 5. People would still have the ability to decrease the max_workers to 1
> (although I could argue about that too).
People who run data warehouses where all of the data comes in as batch
loads regularly disable autovacuum, and should do so. For the DW/batch
load use-case, it makes far more sense to do batch loads interspersed
with ANALYZEs and VACUUMS of loaded/updated tables.
--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-10-20 02:55:06 | Re: Disable autovacuum guc? |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-10-20 02:09:31 | Re: Parallel Index Scans |