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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
