From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | David Gould <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #13750: Autovacuum slows down with large numbers of tables. More workers makes it slower. |
Date: | 2015-10-30 15:49:37 |
Message-ID: | 20151030154937.GH5726@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > David Gould wrote:
> >> Anyway, they are not actually vacuuming. They are waiting on the
> >> VacuumScheduleLock. And requesting freshs snapshots from the
> >> stats_collector.
>
> > Oh, I see. Interesting. Proposals welcome. I especially dislike the
> > ("very_expensive") pgstat check.
>
> Couldn't we simply move that out of the locked stanza? That is, if no
> other worker is working on the table, claim it, and release the lock
> immediately. Then do the "very expensive" check. If that fails, we
> have to re-take the lock to un-claim the table, but that sounds OK.
Hmm, yeah, that would work.
Of course, if we could avoid the pgstat check completely that would be
even better. The amount of pgstat traffic that causes is ridiculous.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-10-30 15:53:57 | Re: BUG #13750: Autovacuum slows down with large numbers of tables. More workers makes it slower. |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-10-30 15:40:27 | Re: BUG #13750: Autovacuum slows down with large numbers of tables. More workers makes it slower. |