Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread
| От | Robert Treat |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABV9wwM_Q9+-AXga=t=RPXMYHRNoRK_UEqXy-Q8_=WcOjJ=iAw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 11:36 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote: > > Still catching up on the latest discussion, but here's a v8 patch that > amends the DEBUG3 in relation_needs_vacanalyze() to also log the score. I > might attempt to add some sort of brief documentation about autovacuum > prioritization next. > > From skimming the latest discussion, I gather we might want to consider > re-sorting the list periodically. Is the idea that we'll re-sort the > remaining tables in the list, or that we'll basically restart > do_autovacuum()? If it's the latter, then we'll need to come up with some > way to decide when to stop for the current database. Right now, we just go > through pg_class and call it a day. > FWIW, when I have built these types of systems in the past, and when I wanted an aggressive recheck-type mechanism, the most common methods involved tying it to autovacuum_max_workers. This usually was done under the assumption that generating the list was relatively cheap and that higher xid age would generate higher priority candidates. Of course I also was biased towards having it be user controllable at the database level (ie. no need to modify some control file or cron job or whatever). To the degree those things are aligned here, there is at least some anecdata that this is a usable setting. Robert Treat https://xzilla.net
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: