Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up?
Date
Msg-id 20140124034227.GY10723@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up?  (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Craig Ringer escribió:
> On 01/24/2014 11:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote:

> > The hard part of this is that shutting down autovacuum during heavy
> > load may be exactly the wrong thing to do.
> 
> Yep. In fact, it may be appropriate to limit or stop autovacuum's work
> on some big tables, while pushing its activity even higher for small,
> high churn tables.
> 
> If you stop autovacuum on a message-queue system when load gets high,
> you'll get a giant messy bloat explosion.

The design we had was to have table groups, each with their own set of
custom parameters, and they would change depending on schedule.  You
could keep the queue tables in one group which would not change
parameters, and only change the rest.

But as I said, it was never fully implemented.  (We had a partial patch
from a GSoC project, IIRC.)  I don't have the cycles to implement it
now, anyway.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: [bug fix] pg_ctl always uses the same event source
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgresql for cygwin - 3rd