On 10/20/2016 06:34 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 10/19/2016 07:22 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> On 10/19/2016 06:27 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> After all these years, we are still regularly running into people who
>>> say, "performance was bad so we disabled autovacuum". I am not talking
>>> about once in a while, it is often. I would like us to consider removing
>>> the autovacuum option. Here are a few reasons:
>>>
>>> 1. It does not hurt anyone
>>> 2. It removes a foot gun
>>> 3. Autovacuum is *not* optional, we shouldn't let it be
>>> 4. People could still disable it at the table level for those tables
>>> that do fall into the small window of, no maintenance is o.k.
>>> 5. People would still have the ability to decrease the max_workers to 1
>>> (although I could argue about that too).
>>
>> People who run data warehouses where all of the data comes in as batch
>> loads regularly disable autovacuum, and should do so. For the DW/batch
>> load use-case, it makes far more sense to do batch loads interspersed
>> with ANALYZEs and VACUUMS of loaded/updated tables.
>
> Hrm, true although that is by far a minority of our users. What if we
> made it so we disabled the autovacuum guc but made it so you could
> disable autovacuum per database (ALTER DATABASE SET or something such
> thing?).
Well, that wouldn't fix the problem; people would just disable it per
database, even if it was a bad idea.
If I can't get rid of vacuum_defer_cleanup_age, you're not going to be
able to get rid of autovacuum.
Now, if you want to "fix" this issue, one thing which would help a lot
is making it possible to disable/enable Autovacuum on one table without
exclusive locking (for the ALTER statement), and create a how-to doc
somewhere which explains how and why to disable autovac per-table. Most
of our users don't know that it's even possible to adjust this per-table.
--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)
