| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Frédéric Yhuel <frederic(dot)yhuel(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: New GUC autovacuum_max_threshold ? |
| Date: | 2025-01-08 20:01:25 |
| Message-ID: | Z37ZlVqUzSapV3ZD@nathan |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 02:48:10PM +0100, Frédéric Yhuel wrote:
> For what it's worth, although I would have preferred the sub-linear growth
> thing, I'd much rather have this than nothing.
+1, this is how I feel, too. But I also don't want to add something that
folks won't find useful.
> And I have to admit that the proposed formulas were either too convoluted or
> wrong.
>
> This very patch is more straightforward. Please let me know if I can help
> and how.
I read through the thread from the top, and it does seem like there is
reasonably strong support for the hard cap. Upon a closer review of the
patch, I noticed that the relopt was defined such that you couldn't disable
autovacuum_max_threshold on a per-table basis, so I fixed that in v4.
--
nathan
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v4-0001-Introduce-autovacuum_max_threshold.patch | text/plain | 10.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2025-01-08 20:07:24 | Re: use a non-locking initial test in TAS_SPIN on AArch64 |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2025-01-08 19:58:25 | Re: using PGOPTIONS in meson |