On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 1:03 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Attached patch teaches autovacuum.c to pass the information down to
> lazyvacuum.c, which includes the information in the autovacuum log.
> The approach I've taken is very similar to the existing approach with
> anti-wraparound autovacuum.
On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 11:11 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > It might make sense to *always* show how close we were to hitting each
> > of the thresholds, including the ones that we didn't end up hitting
> > (we may come pretty close quite often, which seems like it might
> > matter). But showing
On Sat, Aug 06, 2022 at 04:09:28PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> What are the chances that both thresholds will be crossed at *exactly*
> (not approximately) the same time in a real world case, where the
> table isn't tiny (tiny relative to the "autovacuum_naptime quantum")?
> This is a very
On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 3:51 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Well, autovacuum.c should have (and/or kind of already has) 3
> > different triggering conditions. These are mutually exclusive
> > conditions -- technically autovacuum.c always launches an autovacuum
> > against a table because exactly 1 of
On Sat, Aug 06, 2022 at 03:41:57PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > > Note that a VACUUM that is an "automatic vacuum for inserted tuples"
> > > cannot
> > > [...] also be a "regular" autovacuum/VACUUM
> >
> > Why not ?
I think maybe you missed my intent in trimming the "anti-wraparound" part
On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 2:50 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> This sounded familiar, and it seems like I anticipated that it might be an
> issue. Here, I was advocating for the new insert-based GUCs to default to -1,
> to have insert-based autovacuum fall back to the thresholds specified by the
>
On Sat, Aug 06, 2022 at 01:03:57PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> thresholds. It may be far from obvious which triggering condition
> autovacuum.c must have applied to trigger any given autovacuum, since
> that information isn't currently passed down to lazyvacuum.c. This
> seems like a problem
It's quite possible (and probably very common) for certain tables to
have autovacuum scheduling trigger autovacuums based on both the
"regular" bloat-orientated thresholds, and the newer insert-based
thresholds. It may be far from obvious which triggering condition
autovacuum.c must have applied
