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  <br...@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + Everyone has their own god. +

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to