On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 01:56:04PM -0400, Stephen Smoogen wrote: > On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 at 13:09, Kevin Fenzi via infrastructure < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Trying to answer everyone... ;) > > > > > > Well, thats... the entire table. Most of the time there's no bounce > > events to process, or only 1-2. > > > > I worry there that just deleting them, but leaving the table might cause > > postgresql to have bloated indexes or the like even tho the table is now > > pretty small? But I guess a vacuum full would fix that. > > > > I also don't understand why they are keeping these... is there some > > historical value in knowning about a bounce 5 years ago? > > > > > So I would recommend scrubbing that table. When we were looking at the > upgrade to mailman3 this was a table which was listed by upstream as > needing manual cleaning if you did the upgrade. The problem was that it > killed performance as it tries to work its way through the ginormous table > and remove people who have bounced too much. When we looked at this in > 2020, there were multiple reports from other users of upgrading mailman3 to > newest that they lost half their membership weeks after the upgrade because > the bounce table had finally gotten whatever usage count it needed to do > and cleaned out what were considered bad accounts. It didn't matter if the > bounce was 2 years ago and 6 months ago. That was enough to consider it a > removal for bounces. They may have fixed that part eventually, but I would > expect it to still cause issues at that size.
Yeah, the number of unprocessed ones is very very very low... so it's not behind, but just causing tons of I/O. ;( > [I am assuming here that this is the issue I marked back then as MUST BE > DONE during the upgrade and not some other one which caused similar > problems from the large bounce table.] Hard to say... :) In any case I added the index and it's... much much happier. It's no longer pegged at 100% i/o used... but it's still kinda high. I see the autovacuum using a lot of IO still. That might be because it was behind before, or because it's re-vacuuming the bounces table. Will try and see... We may have to look at other applications for improvements. We do have a slow query log we can look at. kevin -- _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
