Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill)

On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 22:04, Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski
 wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 2:36 AM David Rowley  wrote:
>> I thought recently that it would be good to have some sort of
>> pro-active auto-vacuum mode that made use of idle workers.
>
> Problem with "idle" is that it never happens on system that are going to wraparound on their lifetime. This has to be a part of normal database functioning.

I'd say auto-vacuum is configured to run too slowly if you never have
an idle worker. The chances that it happens to be running at exactly
the right speed to keep up with demand must be about close to nil.

> Why not select a table that has inserts, updates and deletes for autovacuum just like we do for autoanalyze, not only deletes and updates like we do now?

Sounds like a good idea, although I do agree with Alvaro when he
mentions that it would be good to only invoke a worker that was only
going to freeze tuples and not look at the indexes. I've not looked at
it, but there's a patch [1] in the current CF for that.  I'd say a
good course of action would be to review that then write a patch with
a new bool flag in relation_needs_vacanalyze for "freezeonly" and have
auto-vacuum invoke vacuum in this new freeze only mode if freezeonly
is set and dovacuum is not.

Any patch not in the current CF is already PG13 or beyond. Having at
least a freeze only vacuum mode main ease some pain, even if it still
needs to be done manually for anyone finding themselves in a similar
situation as mailchimp.

The idea I was mentioning was more targeted to ease the sudden rush of
auto-vacuum activity when suddenly a bunch of large tables require an
anti-wraparound vacuum all at once.

[1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/22/1817/

-- 
 David Rowley                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services