* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > I agree that it's a common problem for VACUUM to go too fast, or for > > VACUUM to go too slow, but that's really what the vacuum_cost_limit > > mechanism is for. > > I think that's a valid point. There are also other concerns here - > e.g. whether instead of adopting the patch as proposed we ought to (a) > use some smaller size, or (b) keep the size as-is but reduce the > maximum fraction of shared_buffers that can be consumed, or (c) divide > the ring buffer size through by autovacuum_max_workers. Personally, > of those approaches, I favor (b). I think a 16MB ring buffer is > probably just fine if you've got 8GB of shared_buffers but I'm > skeptical about it when you've got 128MB of shared_buffers.
Right, agreed on that and that (b) looks to be a good option there. Thanks! Stephen
Description: Digital signature