| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: autovacuum_work_mem |
| Date: | 2013-12-13 18:24:03 |
| Message-ID: | 20131213182403.GA9148@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:35:32AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 12/11/2013 09:57 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I don't agree with that assessment. Anything that involves changing
> > the scheduling of autovacuum is a major project that will legitimately
> > provoke much controversy. Extensive testing will be needed to prove
> > that the new algorithm doesn't perform worse than the current
> > algorithm in any important cases. I have my doubts about whether that
> > can be accomplished in an entire release cycle, let alone 2-3 days.
> > In contrast, the patch proposed does something that is easy to
> > understand, clearly safe, and an improvement over what we have now.
>
> +1
>
> There is an inherent tuning and troubleshooting challenge in anything
> involving a feedback loop.
We have avoided feedback loops in the past. I think eventually we are
going to need to tackle them, but it is a big job, and vacuum memory
usage would be at the bottom of my list of feedback loop tasks.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-12-13 18:29:43 | Re: autovacuum_work_mem |
| Previous Message | Fabrízio de Royes Mello | 2013-12-13 18:17:32 | Re: patch: make_timestamp function |