Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Rowley
Subject Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill)
Date
Msg-id CAApHDvpWmpqYrKwwDQyeDq8dAyK7GMNaxDhrG69CkSuXoEg+Vg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill)  (David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill)  (David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 at 19:21, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you.  Pushed.

I'm unsure yet if this has caused an instability on lousyjack's run in
[1]. I see that table does have 30,000 rows inserted, so it does seem
probable that it may receive an autovacuum now when didn't before. I
did a quick local test to see if swapping the "ANALYZE pagg_tab_ml;"
to "VACUUM ANALYZE pagg_tab_ml;" would do the same on my local
machine, but it didn't.

I'll keep an eye on lousyjack's next run.  If it passes next run, I
may add some SQL to determine if pg_stat_all_tables.autovacuum_count
for those tables are varying between passing and failing runs.

David

[1] https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=lousyjack&dt=2020-03-28%2006%3A33%3A02



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "movead.li@highgo.ca"
Date:
Subject: Re: A bug when use get_bit() function for a long bytea string
Next
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove pgbench "progress" testpending solution of its timing is (fwd)