| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, 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 19:58:28 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYshCZF4a0k4R3eOwn08xXqSdfmPxzGxS0RKBVmKAByGg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 3:44 PM Melanie Plageman
<melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> VacuumUpdateCosts() also calls AutoVacuumUpdateCostLimit(), so this will
> happen if a config reload is pending the next time vacuum_delay_point()
> is called (which is pretty often -- roughly once per block vacuumed but
> definitely more than once per table).
>
> Relevant code is at the top of vacuum_delay_point():
>
> if (ConfigReloadPending && IsAutoVacuumWorkerProcess())
> {
> ConfigReloadPending = false;
> ProcessConfigFile(PGC_SIGHUP);
> VacuumUpdateCosts();
> }
Yeah, that all makes sense, and I did see that logic, but I'm
struggling to reconcile it with what that comment says.
Maybe I'm just confused about what that comment is trying to explain.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-04-05 20:05:02 | Re: on placeholder entries in view rule action query's range table |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2023-04-05 19:49:34 | Re: How should we wait for recovery conflict resolution? |