| From: | Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski <me(at)komzpa(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill) |
| Date: | 2019-03-31 10:30:12 |
| Message-ID: | CAC8Q8tJ0xjrjhMHCGC2yfwQ-h_Vp0fuoKLWCn_6tNQ0SHES_Ug@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> If it's months, we probably want limit vacuum to working at a pretty
> slow rate, say 1% of the table size per hour or something. If it's in
> hours, we need to be a lot more aggressive. Right now we have no
> information to tell us which of those things is the case, so we'd just
> be shooting in the dark.
Thing is, you don't need to spread out your vacuum in time if the rate of
vacuuming matches rate of table growth. Can we mark tuples/pages as
all-visible and all-frozen say, the moment they're pushed out of
shared_buffers?
--
Darafei Praliaskouski
Support me: http://patreon.com/komzpa
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Darafei Komяpa Praliaskouski | 2019-03-31 10:40:07 | Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill) |
| Previous Message | Darafei Komяpa Praliaskouski | 2019-03-31 10:19:53 | Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill) |