On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:35:32AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 12/11/2013 09:57 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I don't agree with that assessment. Anything that involves changing
> > the scheduling of autovacuum is a major project that will legitimately
> > provoke much controversy. Extensive testing will be needed to prove
> > that the new algorithm doesn't perform worse than the current
> > algorithm in any important cases. I have my doubts about whether that
> > can be accomplished in an entire release cycle, let alone 2-3 days.
> > In contrast, the patch proposed does something that is easy to
> > understand, clearly safe, and an improvement over what we have now.
>
> +1
>
> There is an inherent tuning and troubleshooting challenge in anything
> involving a feedback loop.
We have avoided feedback loops in the past. I think eventually we are
going to need to tackle them, but it is a big job, and vacuum memory
usage would be at the bottom of my list of feedback loop tasks.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +