Re: Per table autovacuum vacuum cost limit behaviour strange - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: Per table autovacuum vacuum cost limit behaviour strange
Date
Msg-id 20141002135412.GX5311@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Per table autovacuum vacuum cost limit behaviour strange  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Per table autovacuum vacuum cost limit behaviour strange
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> So in essence what we're going to do is that the balance mechanism
> considers only tables that don't have per-table configuration options;
> for those that do, we will use the values configured there without any
> changes.
>
> I'll see about implementing this and making sure it finds its way to
> 9.4beta3.

Here's a patch that makes it work as proposed.

How do people feel about back-patching this?  On one hand it seems
there's a lot of fear of changing autovacuum behavior in back branches,
because for many production systems it has carefully been tuned; on the
other hand, it seems hard to believe that anyone has tuned the system to
work sanely given how insanely per-table options behave in the current
code.

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

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: NEXT VALUE FOR
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: WITH CHECK and Column-Level Privileges