| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Track the amount of time waiting due to cost_delay |
| Date: | 2024-06-11 16:40:36 |
| Message-ID: | Zmh-BGYbJu2_Y3rr@nathan |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 07:25:11AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> So I think that in v2 we could: 1) measure the actual wait time instead, 2)
> count the number of times the vacuum slept. We could also 3) reports the
> effective cost limit (as proposed by Nathan up-thread) (I think that 3) could
> be misleading but I'll yield to majority opinion if people think it's not).
I still think the effective cost limit would be useful, if for no other
reason than to help reinforce that it is distributed among the autovacuum
workers. We could document that this value may change over the lifetime of
a worker to help avoid misleading folks.
--
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-06-11 17:02:55 | Re: Improve the granularity of PQsocketPoll's timeout parameter? |
| Previous Message | Ranier Vilela | 2024-06-11 16:34:21 | Re: Improve the granularity of PQsocketPoll's timeout parameter? |