> On 27 Apr 2023, at 23:25, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 27 Apr 2023, at 16:53, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>> Fix LGTM.
>
> Thanks for review. I plan to push this in the morning.
Done, thanks.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
> On 27 Apr 2023, at 16:53, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 8:55 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>
>>> On 27 Apr 2023, at 14:10, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>> Good catch. I think the problem is that vacuum_rel() is called
>>> recursively and we don't reset VacuumFailsafeActive
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 8:55 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > On 27 Apr 2023, at 14:10, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 6:30 PM John Naylor
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 6:08 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I had another read-through and
> On 27 Apr 2023, at 14:10, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 6:30 PM John Naylor
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 6:08 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>>
>>> I had another read-through and test-through of this version, and have
>>> applied
>>> it with some minor
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 6:30 PM John Naylor
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 6:08 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> >
> > I had another read-through and test-through of this version, and have
> > applied
> > it with some minor changes to comments and whitespace. Thanks for the quick
> >
> On 27 Apr 2023, at 11:29, John Naylor wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 6:08 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > I had another read-through and test-through of this version, and have
> > applied
> > it with some minor changes to comments and whitespace. Thanks for the quick
> > turnaround times
On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 6:08 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> I had another read-through and test-through of this version, and have
applied
> it with some minor changes to comments and whitespace. Thanks for the
quick
> turnaround times on reviews in this thread!
- VacuumFailsafeActive =
On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 10:35 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > On 25 Apr 2023, at 15:31, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 9:39 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 17 Apr 2023, at 04:04, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >>
> >>> I've attached an updated patch for fixing
> On 25 Apr 2023, at 15:31, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 9:39 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>
>>> On 17 Apr 2023, at 04:04, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>
>>> I've attached an updated patch for fixing at_dobalance condition.
>>
>> I revisited this and pushed it to all
On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 9:39 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > On 17 Apr 2023, at 04:04, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> > I've attached an updated patch for fixing at_dobalance condition.
>
> I revisited this and pushed it to all supported branches after another round
> of
> testing and reading.
> On 17 Apr 2023, at 04:04, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I've attached an updated patch for fixing at_dobalance condition.
I revisited this and pushed it to all supported branches after another round of
testing and reading.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 12:05 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 10:23 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> >
> > > On 7 Apr 2023, at 15:07, Melanie Plageman
> > > wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 2:53 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Definitely seems worth fixing as
> On 11 Apr 2023, at 17:05, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> The comment of message_level_is_interesting() says:
>
> * This is useful to short-circuit any expensive preparatory work that
> * might be needed for a logging message.
>
> Which can apply to taking a lwlock, I think.
I agree that we can,
On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 10:23 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > On 7 Apr 2023, at 15:07, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 2:53 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
>
> >> + /* Only log updates to cost-related variables */
> >> + if (vacuum_cost_delay ==
On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 9:07 AM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 2:53 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 8:08 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 7 Apr 2023, at 00:12, Melanie Plageman
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 5:45
> On 7 Apr 2023, at 15:07, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 2:53 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> + /* Only log updates to cost-related variables */
>> + if (vacuum_cost_delay == original_cost_delay &&
>> + vacuum_cost_limit == original_cost_limit)
>> +
On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 2:53 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 8:08 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> >
> > > On 7 Apr 2023, at 00:12, Melanie Plageman
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 5:45 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On 6 Apr 2023, at 23:06,
> On 7 Apr 2023, at 08:52, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 8:08 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> I had another read-through and test-through of this version, and have applied
>> it with some minor changes to comments and whitespace. Thanks for the quick
>> turnaround times on
On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 8:08 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > On 7 Apr 2023, at 00:12, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 5:45 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 6 Apr 2023, at 23:06, Melanie Plageman
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Autovacuum workers, at the end of
> On 7 Apr 2023, at 00:12, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 5:45 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>
>>> On 6 Apr 2023, at 23:06, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>>
>>> Autovacuum workers, at the end of VacuumUpdateCosts(), check if cost
>>> limit or cost delay have been changed. If
On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 5:45 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > On 6 Apr 2023, at 23:06, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>
> > Autovacuum workers, at the end of VacuumUpdateCosts(), check if cost
> > limit or cost delay have been changed. If they have, they assert that
> > they don't already hold the
> On 6 Apr 2023, at 23:06, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> Autovacuum workers, at the end of VacuumUpdateCosts(), check if cost
> limit or cost delay have been changed. If they have, they assert that
> they don't already hold the AutovacuumLock, take it in shared mode, and
> do the logging.
Another
I think attached v18 addresses all outstanding issues except a run
through the docs making sure all mentions of the balancing algorithm are
still correct.
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 9:10 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 4 Apr 2023, at 22:04, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> >> +extern int
v17 attached does not yet fix the logging problem or variable naming
problem.
I have not changed where AutoVacuumUpdateCostLimit() is called either.
This is effectively just a round of cleanup. I hope I have managed to
address all other code review feedback so far, though some may have
slipped
> On 6 Apr 2023, at 19:18, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 11:52 AM Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
>>> Gah, I think I misunderstood you. You are saying that only calling
>>> AutoVacuumUpdateCostLimit() after napping while vacuuming a table may
>>> not be enough. The frequency at which
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 4:59 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I think that I agree. I think that the difficulty of tuning autovacuum
> is the actual real problem. (Or maybe it's just very closely related
> to the real problem -- the precise definition doesn't seem important.)
I agree, and I think that
On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 11:52 AM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
> > Gah, I think I misunderstood you. You are saying that only calling
> > AutoVacuumUpdateCostLimit() after napping while vacuuming a table may
> > not be enough. The frequency at which the number of workers changes will
> > likely be
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 11:10 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 3:43 PM Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 2:56 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> > >
> > > + /*
> > > + * Balance and update limit values for autovacuum workers. We must
> > > + * always do this in case
> On 6 Apr 2023, at 08:39, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Also I agree with
> where to put the log but I think the log message should start with
> lower cases:
>
> +elog(DEBUG2,
> + "Autovacuum VacuumUpdateCosts(db=%u, rel=%u,
In principle I agree, but in this
On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 12:29 AM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> Thanks all for the reviews.
>
> v16 attached. I put it together rather quickly, so there might be a few
> spurious whitespaces or similar. There is one rather annoying pgindent
> outlier that I have to figure out what to do about as
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 3:43 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 2:56 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Balance and update limit values for autovacuum workers. We must
> > + * always do this in case the autovacuum launcher or another
> > + * autovacuum worker has
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 1:38 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Not to derail this thread, and pre-empt a thread where this can be discussed
> in
> its own context, but isn't that kind of the main problem? Tuning autovacuum
> is
> really complicated and one of the parameters that I think universally
> On 5 Apr 2023, at 22:19, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> The bigger problem seems to
> be everything else -- the way that tuning autovacuum_max_workers kinda
> makes sense (it shouldn't be an interesting tunable)
Not to derail this thread, and pre-empt a thread where this can be discussed in
its own
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 11:56 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> To be honest, I think that the whole system where we divide the cost
> limit across the workers is the wrong idea. Does anyone actually like
> that behavior? This patch probably shouldn't touch that, just in the
> interest of getting something
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 3:44 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
> VacuumUpdateCosts() also calls AutoVacuumUpdateCostLimit(), so this will
> happen if a config reload is pending the next time vacuum_delay_point()
> is called (which is pretty often -- roughly once per block vacuumed but
> definitely more
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 2:56 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> + /*
> + * Balance and update limit values for autovacuum workers. We must
> + * always do this in case the autovacuum launcher or another
> + * autovacuum worker has recalculated the number of workers across
> + * which we must balance the
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 3:04 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > Daniel: Are you intending to commit this?
>
> Yes, my plan is to get it in before feature freeze.
All right, let's make it happen! I think this is pretty close to ready
to ship, and it would solve a problem that is real, annoying, and
> On 5 Apr 2023, at 20:55, Robert Haas wrote:
> Again, I don't think this is something we should try to
> address right now under time pressure, but in the future, I think we
> should consider ripping this behavior out.
I would not be opposed to that, but I wholeheartedly agree that it's not
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 11:29 AM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
> Thanks all for the reviews.
>
> v16 attached. I put it together rather quickly, so there might be a few
> spurious whitespaces or similar. There is one rather annoying pgindent
> outlier that I have to figure out what to do about as well.
> On 5 Apr 2023, at 17:29, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>>
>> I think I wasn't clear in my comment, sorry. I don't have a problem with
>> introducing a new variable to split the balanced value from the GUC value.
>> What I don't think we should do is repurpose an exported symbol into doing a
>> new
Thanks all for the reviews.
v16 attached. I put it together rather quickly, so there might be a few
spurious whitespaces or similar. There is one rather annoying pgindent
outlier that I have to figure out what to do about as well.
The remaining functional TODOs that I know of are:
- Resolve
> On 4 Apr 2023, at 22:04, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 4:27 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> Also, I don't think there is any reason why we want to exclude only
>> the autovacuum launcher.
>
> My rationale is that the launcher is the only other process type which
> might
Hi.
About 0001:
+ * VacuumFailsafeActive is a defined as a global so that we can determine
+ * whether or not to re-enable cost-based vacuum delay when vacuuming a table.
+ * If failsafe mode has been engaged, we will not re-enable cost-based delay
+ * for the table until after vacuuming has
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 5:05 AM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 4:27 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > ---
> > -if (worker->wi_proc != NULL)
> > -elog(DEBUG2, "autovac_balance_cost(pid=%d
> > db=%u, rel=%u, dobalance=%s cost_limit=%d,
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 4:27 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> The 0001 patch mostly looks good to me except for one
> point:
>
> @@ -391,7 +389,7 @@ heap_vacuum_rel(Relation rel, VacuumParams *params,
> Assert(params->index_cleanup != VACOPTVALUE_UNSPECIFIED);
>
> On 4 Apr 2023, at 00:35, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 3:08 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2023-04-03 14:43:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Melanie Plageman writes:
v13 attached with requested updates.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid I'd not been paying any attention to this
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 1:41 AM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 2, 2023 at 10:28 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > Thank you for updating the patches. Here are comments for 0001, 0002,
> > and 0003 patches:
>
> Thanks for the review!
>
> v13 attached with requested updates.
>
> > 0001:
> >
>
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 3:08 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-04-03 14:43:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Melanie Plageman writes:
> > > v13 attached with requested updates.
> >
> > I'm afraid I'd not been paying any attention to this discussion,
> > but better late than never. I'm okay with
Hi,
On 2023-04-03 14:43:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Melanie Plageman writes:
> > v13 attached with requested updates.
>
> I'm afraid I'd not been paying any attention to this discussion,
> but better late than never. I'm okay with letting autovacuum
> processes reload config files more often
Melanie Plageman writes:
> v13 attached with requested updates.
I'm afraid I'd not been paying any attention to this discussion,
but better late than never. I'm okay with letting autovacuum
processes reload config files more often than now. However,
I object to allowing ProcessConfigFile to be
On Sun, Apr 2, 2023 at 10:28 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Thank you for updating the patches. Here are comments for 0001, 0002,
> and 0003 patches:
Thanks for the review!
v13 attached with requested updates.
> 0001:
>
> @@ -391,7 +389,7 @@ heap_vacuum_rel(Relation rel, VacuumParams *params,
>
On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 4:09 AM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 10:31 AM Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 3:26 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 30 Mar 2023, at 04:57, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > >
> > > > As another idea, why don't we use
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 10:31 AM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 3:26 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> >
> > > On 30 Mar 2023, at 04:57, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > > As another idea, why don't we use macros for that? For example,
> > > suppose VacuumCostStatus is like:
> >
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 3:26 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > On 30 Mar 2023, at 04:57, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> > As another idea, why don't we use macros for that? For example,
> > suppose VacuumCostStatus is like:
> >
> > typedef enum VacuumCostStatus
> > {
> >
> On 30 Mar 2023, at 04:57, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> As another idea, why don't we use macros for that? For example,
> suppose VacuumCostStatus is like:
>
> typedef enum VacuumCostStatus
> {
>VACUUM_COST_INACTIVE_LOCKED = 0,
>VACUUM_COST_INACTIVE,
>VACUUM_COST_ACTIVE,
> }
Hi,
Thank you for updating the patches.
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 5:01 AM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> Thanks for the detailed review!
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 11:09 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> >
> > At Tue, 28 Mar 2023 20:35:28 -0400, Melanie Plageman
> > wrote in
> > > On Tue, Mar 28,
Thanks for the detailed review!
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 11:09 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Tue, 28 Mar 2023 20:35:28 -0400, Melanie Plageman
> wrote in
> > On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 4:21 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > At Mon, 27 Mar 2023 14:12:03 -0400, Melanie Plageman
> >
At Wed, 29 Mar 2023 13:21:55 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> So, sorry for the noise. I'll review it while this into cnosideration.
0003:
It's not this patche's fault, but I don't like the fact that the
variables used for GUC, VacuumCostDelay and VacuumCostLimit, are
updated outside
At Wed, 29 Mar 2023 13:21:55 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> autovacuum.c:2893
> /*
>* If any of the cost delay parameters has been set
> individually for
>* this table, disable the balancing algorithm.
>*/
>
At Wed, 29 Mar 2023 12:09:08 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> timeing perfectly. I think we might accidentally add a reload
> timing. In that case, the assumption could break. In most cases, I
> think we use snapshotting in various ways to avoid unintended variable
> changes. (And I
At Tue, 28 Mar 2023 20:35:28 -0400, Melanie Plageman
wrote in
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 4:21 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> >
> > At Mon, 27 Mar 2023 14:12:03 -0400, Melanie Plageman
> > wrote in
> > > So, I've attached an alternate version of the patchset which takes the
> > > approach of
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 4:21 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Mon, 27 Mar 2023 14:12:03 -0400, Melanie Plageman
> wrote in
> > So, I've attached an alternate version of the patchset which takes the
> > approach of having one commit which only enables cost-based delay GUC
> > refresh for
At Mon, 27 Mar 2023 14:12:03 -0400, Melanie Plageman
wrote in
> So, I've attached an alternate version of the patchset which takes the
> approach of having one commit which only enables cost-based delay GUC
> refresh for VACUUM and another commit which enables it for autovacuum
> and makes the
On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 3:03 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 8:27 PM Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 2:09 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > > > And, I was wondering if it was worth trying to split up the part that
> > > > reloads the config file and
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 8:27 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 2:09 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > And, I was wondering if it was worth trying to split up the part that
> > > reloads the config file and all of the autovacuum stuff. The reloading
> > > of the config file by
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 1:21 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 9:27 AM Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 2:09 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 7:47 AM Melanie Plageman
> > > wrote:
> > > Do we need to calculate the number
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 9:27 AM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 2:09 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 7:47 AM Melanie Plageman
> > wrote:
> > Do we need to calculate the number of workers running with
> > nworkers_for_balance by iterating over the
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 2:09 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 7:47 AM Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
> Do we need to calculate the number of workers running with
> nworkers_for_balance by iterating over the running worker list? I
> guess autovacuum workers can increment/decrement
> On 23 Mar 2023, at 07:08, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 7:47 AM Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
> It makes sense to me that we need to reload the config file even when
> vacuum-delay is disabled. But I think it's not convenient for users
> that we don't reload the configuration
On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 7:47 AM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 1:14 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 8:11 AM Melanie Plageman
> > wrote:
> > > I've implemented the atomic cost limit in the attached patch. Though,
> > > I'm pretty unsure about how I
On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 6:47 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 1:14 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 8:11 AM Melanie Plageman
> > wrote:
> > > > > Also not sure how the patch interacts with failsafe autovac and
> > > > > parallel
> > > > > vacuum.
> > >
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 1:14 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 8:11 AM Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
> > I've implemented the atomic cost limit in the attached patch. Though,
> > I'm pretty unsure about how I initialized the atomics in
> > AutoVacuumShmemInit()...
>
> +
>
On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 8:11 AM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> Quotes below are combined from two of Sawada-san's emails.
>
> I've also attached a patch with my suggested current version.
>
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 10:27 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 11:23 AM Melanie
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 6:11 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> Quotes below are combined from two of Sawada-san's emails.
>
> I've also attached a patch with my suggested current version.
>
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 10:27 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 11:23 AM Melanie
Quotes below are combined from two of Sawada-san's emails.
I've also attached a patch with my suggested current version.
On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 10:27 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 11:23 AM Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 12:10 AM Masahiko Sawada
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 11:23 AM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 12:10 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 5:26 AM Melanie Plageman
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 6:37 PM Melanie Plageman
> > > In this version I've removed wi_cost_delay
On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 12:10 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 5:26 AM Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 6:37 PM Melanie Plageman
> > In this version I've removed wi_cost_delay from WorkerInfoData. There is
> > no synchronization of cost_delay amongst
On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 4:47 PM John Naylor wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 12:42 AM Jim Nasby wrote:
> >
> > Doesn't the dead tuple space grow as needed? Last I looked we don't
> > allocate up to 1GB right off the bat.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> > Of course, if the patch that eliminates the 1GB
On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 12:42 AM Jim Nasby wrote:
>
> Doesn't the dead tuple space grow as needed? Last I looked we don't
allocate up to 1GB right off the bat.
Incorrect.
> Of course, if the patch that eliminates the 1GB vacuum limit gets
committed the situation will be even worse.
If you're
Hi,
On 2023-03-08 11:42:31 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 3/2/23 1:36 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> > > > > For example, I guess we will need to take care of changes of
> > > > > maintenance_work_mem. Currently we initialize the dead tuple space at
> > > > > the beginning of lazy vacuum, but
On 3/2/23 1:36 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
For example, I guess we will need to take care of changes of
maintenance_work_mem. Currently we initialize the dead tuple space at
the beginning of lazy vacuum, but perhaps we would need to
enlarge/shrink it based on the new value?
Doesn't the dead
On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 5:26 AM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 6:37 PM Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 2:36 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 10:41 AM Melanie Plageman
> > > wrote:
> > > > On another topic, I've just
On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 6:37 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 2:36 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 10:41 AM Melanie Plageman
> > wrote:
> > > On another topic, I've just realized that when autovacuuming we only
> > > update
On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 2:36 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 10:41 AM Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
> > On another topic, I've just realized that when autovacuuming we only
> > update tab->at_vacuum_cost_delay/limit from
> > autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay/limit for each table (in
>
On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 10:41 AM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 9:12 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 7:08 AM Melanie Plageman
> > wrote:
> > > Users may wish to speed up long-running vacuum of a large table by
> > > decreasing
On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 5:45 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2023-02-28 11:16:45 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 10:21 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On 2023-02-27 23:11:53 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > > As far as I know there are not such GUC parameters in the core
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 9:12 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 7:08 AM Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
> > Users may wish to speed up long-running vacuum of a large table by
> > decreasing autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay/vacuum_cost_delay, however the
> > config file is only reloaded
Hi,
On 2023-02-28 11:16:45 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 10:21 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2023-02-27 23:11:53 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > As far as I know there are not such GUC parameters in the core but
> > > there might be in third-party table AM and
Thanks for the feedback and questions, Pavel!
On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 3:43 AM Pavel Borisov wrote:
> I have a couple of small questions:
> Can this patch also read the current GUC value if it's modified by the
> SET command, without editing config file?
If a user sets a guc like
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 10:21 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2023-02-27 23:11:53 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > As far as I know there are not such GUC parameters in the core but
> > there might be in third-party table AM and index AM extensions.
>
> We already reload in a pretty broad
Hi,
On 2023-02-27 23:11:53 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> As far as I know there are not such GUC parameters in the core but
> there might be in third-party table AM and index AM extensions.
We already reload in a pretty broad range of situations, so I'm not sure
there's a lot that could be
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 7:08 AM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Users may wish to speed up long-running vacuum of a large table by
> decreasing autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay/vacuum_cost_delay, however the
> config file is only reloaded between tables (for autovacuum) or after
> the
Hi, Melanie!
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 at 02:08, Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Users may wish to speed up long-running vacuum of a large table by
> decreasing autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay/vacuum_cost_delay, however the
> config file is only reloaded between tables (for autovacuum) or after
> the
Hi,
Users may wish to speed up long-running vacuum of a large table by
decreasing autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay/vacuum_cost_delay, however the
config file is only reloaded between tables (for autovacuum) or after
the statement (for explicit vacuum). This has been brought up for
autovacuum in [1].
94 matches
Mail list logo
