On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 12:31 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 7:37 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think the idea would not be an improvement, but just change the
>> policy. The current launcher's policy is "let's launch a new worker as
>> much as possible on the database that is at risk of wraparound most".
>> The idea I suggested makes the cases mentioned on this thread better
>> while perhaps making other cases worse.
>>
>> To improve while keeping the current policy, we might want to use the
>> first idea I proposed. That is, we don't launch a new worker on a
>> database impending wraparound if the last table of the database is
>> being vacuumed. But it needs to share new information such as what
>> tables exist in each database and which tables already have worker. It
>> might be overkill in order to deal with only such a corner case
>> though.
>
> Something like that might work, but I think it needs more thought.
> Maybe, for each database currently being processed by at least 1
> worker, advertise in shared memory the oldest XID that isn't already
> being vacuumed by some AV worker; when considering which database is
> at greatest risk of wraparound, if that value is available, use it
> instead of the database's datfrozenxid. Then when all tables that
> make that database riskier than some other database already have
> workers, some other database can get a chance.
>
Thank you for suggestion. It sounds more smarter. So it would be more
better if we vacuums database for anti-wraparound in ascending order
of relfrozenxid?
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center