From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Leung, Anthony" <antholeu(at)amazon(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Allow non-superuser to cancel superuser tasks. |
Date: | 2024-07-15 00:54:43 |
Message-ID: | ZpRzU8wE5as44jbQ@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 11:19:05AM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> I suppose it would be silly to allow even lower values for
> autovacuum_naptime (e.g., by moving it to ConfigureNamesReal and setting
> the minimum to 0.1).
I've thought about that as well, and did not mention it as this would
encourage insanely low naptime values resulting in fork() bursts.
> That's a neat trick. I was confused why this test generates an autovacuum
> worker at all, but I now see that you are pausing it before we even gather
> the list of tables that need to be vacuumed.
Yep. More aggressive signals aren't going to help. One thing I also
considered here is to manipulate the db list timestamps inside a
USE_INJECTION_POINTS block in the launcher to make the spawn more
aggressive. Anyway, with 600ms in detection where I've tested it, I
can live with the responsiveness of the patch as proposed.
> Looks reasonable to me.
Thanks. I'll see about stressing the buildfarm tomorrow or so, after
looking at how the CI reacts.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2024-07-15 01:24:19 | Re: [HACKERS] make async slave to wait for lsn to be replayed |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-07-15 00:45:02 | Re: CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY on partitioned index |