| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often |
| Date: | 2023-04-05 20:38:17 |
| Message-ID: | 800860D2-AEE7-4D23-A5C0-9182EC252554@yesql.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 5 Apr 2023, at 22:19, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> The bigger problem seems to
> be everything else -- the way that tuning autovacuum_max_workers kinda
> makes sense (it shouldn't be an interesting tunable)
Not to derail this thread, and pre-empt a thread where this can be discussed in
its own context, but isn't that kind of the main problem? Tuning autovacuum is
really complicated and one of the parameters that I think universally seem to
make sense to users is just autovacuum_max_workers. I agree that it doesn't do
what most think it should, but a quick skim of the name and docs can probably
lead to a lot of folks trying to use it as hammer.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2023-04-05 20:59:03 | Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2023-04-05 20:30:45 | Re: Kerberos delegation support in libpq and postgres_fdw |