On 3/4/19, 1:44 PM, "Andres Freund" <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2019-03-04 21:40:53 +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>> On 3/4/19, 12:11 PM, "Andres Freund" <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> > I'm not quite convinced this is right. There's plenty sites that
>> > practically can't use autovacuum because it might decide to vacuum the
>> > 5TB index because of 300 dead tuples in the middle of busy periods. And
>> > without an reloption that's not controllable.
>>
>> Wouldn't it be better to adjust the cost and threshold parameters or
>> to manually vacuum during quieter periods?
>
> No. (auto)vacuum is useful to reclaim space etc. It's just the
> unnecessary index cleanup that's the problem... Most of the space can
> be reclaimed after all, the item pointer ain't that big...
I see what you mean.
>> I suppose setting DISABLE_INDEX_CLEANUP on a relation during busy
>> periods could be useful if you really need to continue reclaiming
>> transaction IDs, but that seems like an easy way to accidentally never
>> vacuum indexes.
>
> Yea, I do think that's a danger. But we allow disabling autovacuum, so
> I'm not sure it matters that much... And for indexes you'd still have
> the index page-level vacuum that'd continue to work.
I think the difference here is that there isn't something like
autovacuum_freeze_max_age to force index cleanup at some point.
Granted, you can set autovacuum_freeze_max_age to 2B if you want, but
at least there's a fallback available.
Nathan
