On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > I agree that it's a common problem for VACUUM to go too fast, or for > VACUUM to go too slow, but that's really what the vacuum_cost_limit > mechanism is for.
I think that's a valid point. There are also other concerns here - e.g. whether instead of adopting the patch as proposed we ought to (a) use some smaller size, or (b) keep the size as-is but reduce the maximum fraction of shared_buffers that can be consumed, or (c) divide the ring buffer size through by autovacuum_max_workers. Personally, of those approaches, I favor (b). I think a 16MB ring buffer is probably just fine if you've got 8GB of shared_buffers but I'm skeptical about it when you've got 128MB of shared_buffers. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
