Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is the autovacuum patch I am currently working with. This is
> basically the same as the previous patch; I have tweaked the database
> list management so that after a change in databases (say a new database
> is created or a database is dropped), the list is recomputed to account
> for the change, keeping the ordering of the previous list.
I'm interested in your multiworkers autovacuum proposal.
I'm researching the impact of multiworkers with autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit.
Autovacuum will consume server resources up to autovacuum_max_workers times
as many as before. I think we might need to change the semantics of
autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit when we have multiworkers.
BTW, I found an unwitting mistake in the foreach_worker() macro.
These two operations are same in C.
- worker + 1
- (WorkerInfo *) (((char *) worker) + sizeof(WorkerInfo))
#define foreach_worker(_i, _worker) \
_worker = (WorkerInfo *) (AutoVacuumShmem + \
offsetof(AutoVacuumShmemStruct, av_workers)); \
for (_i = 0; _i < autovacuum_max_workers; _i++, _worker +=
#define foreach_worker(_worker) \
for ((_worker) = AutoVacuumShmem->av_workers; \
(_worker) < AutoVacuumShmem->av_workers + autovacuum_max_workers; \
NTT Open Source Software Center
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?