Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Ok, scratch that :-)  Another round of braindumping below.


I still think this is solution in search of a problem. The main problem we have right now is that hot tables can be starved from vacuum. Most of this proposal doesn't touch that. I would like to see that problem solved first, then we can talk about adding multiple workers per database or per tablespace etc...

(This idea can be complemented by having another GUC var,
autovacuum_hot_workers, which allows the DBA to have more than one
worker on hot tables (just for the case where there are too many hot
tables).  This may be overkill.)

I think this is more along the lines of what we need first.

Ron Mayer expressed the thought that we're complicating needlessly the
UI for vacuum_delay, naptime, etc.  He proposes that instead of having
cost_delay etc, we have a mbytes_per_second parameter of some sort.
This strikes me a good idea, but I think we could make that after this
proposal is implemented.  So this "take 2" could be implemented, and
then we could switch the cost_delay stuff to using a MB/s kind of
measurement somehow (he says waving his hands wildly).

Agree this is probably a good idea in the long run, but I agree this is lower on the priority list and should come next.

Greg Stark and Matthew O'Connor say that we're misdirected in having
more than one worker per tablespace.  I say we're not :-)  If we
consider Ron Mayer's idea of measuring MB/s, but we do it per
tablespace, then we would inflict the correct amount of vacuum pain to
each tablespace, sleeping as appropriate.  I think this would require
workers of different databases to communicate what tablespaces they are
using, so that all of them can utilize the correct amount of bandwidth.

I agree that in the long run it might be better to have multiple workers with MB/s throttle and tablespace aware, but we don't have any of that infrastructure right now. I think the piece of low-hanging fruit that your launcher concept can solve is the hot table starvation.

My Proposal: If we require admins to identify hot tables tables, then: 1) Launcher fires-off a worker1 into database X.
2) worker1 deals with "hot" tables first, then regular tables.
3) Launcher continues to launch workers to DB X every autovac naptime. 4) worker2 (or 3 or 4 etc...) sees it is alone in DB X, if so it acts as worker1 did above. If worker1 is still working in DB X then worker2 looks for hot tables that are being starved because worker1 got busy. If worker2 finds no hot tables that need work, then worker2 exits.

This seems a very simple solution (given your launcher work) that can solve the starvation problem.


Thoughts?

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

              http://archives.postgresql.org

Reply via email to