On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 4:24 PM Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > > It sounds like they used DROP TRIGGER pretty regularly. So I think this > > sounds like exactly the kind of case I was talking about, where > > autovacuums keep getting cancelled until we decide to stop cancelling > > them. > > I don't know how you can reach that conclusion.
I can accept that there might be some way I'm wrong about this in theory, but your email then seems to go on to say that I'm right just a few sentences later: > The whole article was about how this DROP TRIGGER pattern worked just > fine most of the time, because most of the time autovacuum was just > autocancelled. They say this at one point: > > "The normal autovacuum mechanism is skipped when locks are held in > order to minimize service disruption. However, because transaction > wraparound is such a severe problem, if the system gets too close to > wraparound, an autovacuum is launched that does not back off under > lock contention." If this isn't arguing in favor of exactly what I'm saying, I don't know what that would look like. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
