Re: New strategies for freezing, advancing relfrozenxid early - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: New strategies for freezing, advancing relfrozenxid early
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmoa58K5y1mXxnYpnTKh9DP1Wo4n93t9RsZrOX2PG=xn8Eg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: New strategies for freezing, advancing relfrozenxid early  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: New strategies for freezing, advancing relfrozenxid early
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 8:49 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> The concrete setting of vacuum_freeze_strategy_threshold doesn't matter.
> Table size simply isn't a usable proxy for whether eager freezing is a good
> idea or not.

I strongly agree. I can't imagine how a size-based threshold can make
any sense at all.

Both Andres and I have repeatedly expressed concern about how much is
being changed in the behavior of vacuum, and how quickly, and IMHO on
the basis of very limited evidence that the changes are improvements.
The fact that Andres was very quickly able to find cases where the
patch produces large regression is just more evidence of that. It's
also hard to even understand what has been changed, because the
descriptions are so theoretical.

I think we're on a very dangerous path here. I want VACUUM to be
better as the next person, but I really don't believe that's the
direction we're headed. I think if we release like this, we're going
to experience more VACUUM pain, not less. And worse still, I don't
think anyone other than Peter and Andres is going to understand why
it's happening.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Record queryid when auto_explain.log_verbose is on
Next
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: Non-superuser subscription owners