On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> > 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.
> WFM.  I agree with *not* dividing the basic ring buffer size by
> autovacuum_max_workers.  If you have allocated more AV workers, I think
> you expect AV to go faster, not for the workers to start fighting among
> themselves.

But fighting among themselves is just what they do regarding the
autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit, so I don't see why it should be one way there
but different here.  The reason for setting autovacuum_max_workers to N is
so that small tables aren't completely starved of vacuuming even if N-1
larger tables are already being vacuumed simultaneously.  Now the small
tables get vacuumed at speed 1/N, which kind of sucks, but that is the
mechanism we currently have.

Of course just because we are in a hole with vacuum_cost_limit doesn't mean
we should dig ourselves deeper, but we are being inconsistent then.



Reply via email to