David Gould <da...@sonic.net> writes:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2018 21:39:08 -0800
> Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> As for preventing it in the first place, based on your description of your
>> hardware and operations, I was going to say you need to increase the max
>> number of autovac workers, but then I remembered you from "Autovacuum slows
>> down with large numbers of tables. More workers makes it slower" (
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20151030133252.3033.4249%40wrigleys.postgresql.org).
>> So you are probably still suffering from that?  Your patch from then seemed
>> to be pretty invasive and so controversial.

> We have been building from source using that patch for the worker contention
> since then. It's very effective, there is no way we could have continued to
> rely on autovacuum without it. It's sort of a nuisance to keep updating it
> for each point release that touches autovacuum, but here we are.

Re-reading that thread, it seems like we should have applied Jeff's
initial trivial patch[1] (to not hold AutovacuumScheduleLock across
table_recheck_autovac) rather than waiting around for a super duper
improvement to get agreed on.  I'm a bit tempted to go do that;
if nothing else, it seems simple enough to back-patch, unlike most
of the rest of what was discussed.

                        regards, tom lane


Reply via email to