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 20141003160632.GC7043@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Per table autovacuum vacuum cost limit behaviour strange  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:

> > I am rather surprised that nobody has reported this problem before.  I
> > am now of the mind that this is clearly a bug that should be fixed all
> > the way back.
> 
> I'm coming around to that also, however, should we worry about users who
> set per-table settings and then simply forgot about them?  I suppose
> that won't matter too much unless the table is really active, and if it
> is, they've probably already set it to zero.

Right.

For the cases where it's been set and forgotten, perhaps we can have an
item in release notes to tell people to look into tables with the
parameters set in pg_class.reloptions (to any value different from zero)
and to look for performance differences from previous versions when they
are.

I have pushed this now, backpatch all the way back to 9.0.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ilya Kosmodemiansky
Date:
Subject: Re: Dynamic LWLock tracing via pg_stat_lwlock (proof of concept)
Next
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: replicating DROP commands across servers