| From: | Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Frédéric Yhuel <frederic(dot)yhuel(at)dalibo(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 08:08:33 |
| Message-ID: | 662b6101.170a0220.12877.a359@mx.google.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 04:24:45AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-04-25 at 14:33 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Another reason, at least in existing releases, is that at some
> > point index vacuuming hits a wall because we run out of space for dead
> > tuples. We *most definitely* want to do index vacuuming before we get
> > to the point where we're going to have to do multiple cycles of index
> > vacuuming.
>
> That is more convincing. But do we need a GUC for that? What about
> making a table eligible for autovacuum as soon as the number of dead
> tuples reaches 90% of what you can hold in "autovacuum_work_mem"?
Due to the improvements in v17, this would basically never trigger
accordings to my understanding, or at least only after an excessive
amount of bloat has been accumulated.
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Frédéric Yhuel | 2024-04-26 08:10:20 | Re: New GUC autovacuum_max_threshold ? |
| Previous Message | Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) | 2024-04-26 07:52:51 | RE: Improving the latch handling between logical replication launcher and worker processes. |