| From: | David Gould <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #13750: Autovacuum slows down with large numbers of tables. More workers makes it slower. |
| Date: | 2016-03-19 08:12:21 |
| Message-ID: | 20160319011221.1b2fbc45@engels |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 19:13:17 -0300
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> David Gould wrote:
>
> > I have some thoughts for a different approach. In short, the stats collector
> > actually knows what needs vacuuming because queries that create dead tuples
> > tell it. I'm considering have the stats collector maintain a queue of
> > vacuum work and that autovacuum request work from the stats collector. When I
> > have something more concrete I'll post it on hackers.
>
> Hm, ideally we would have something backpatchable, but this new idea
> doesn't sound so to me. I think that having some variant of the patch
> you proposed previously would be better for the stable branches.
Sorry for the alarm. My plan is to update the current patch to address the
problem you described. This is intended to be backpatchable. The other
thoughts would be for new development for a future release.
-dg
--
David Gould 510 282 0869 daveg(at)sonic(dot)net
If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Gould | 2016-03-19 08:20:09 | Re: BUG #13750: Autovacuum slows down with large numbers of tables. More workers makes it slower. |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2016-03-19 06:22:59 | Re: postmaster became multithreaded during startup |