Re: [HACKERS] Remove autovacuum GUC?

2016-10-21 Thread Jim Nasby
On 10/20/16 11:50 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: Personally what I think is needed here is to make monitoring and bloat visibility not completely suck. So we can warn users if tables haven't been vac'd in ages and have recent churn. And so they can easily SELECT a view to get bloat estimates with an

Re: [HACKERS] Remove autovacuum GUC?

2016-10-20 Thread Craig Ringer
On 21 Oct. 2016 12:57 am, "Joshua D. Drake" wrote: > > Hello, > > What about a simpler solution to all of this. Let's just remove it from postgresql.conf. Out of sight. If someone needs to test they can but a uneducated user won't immediately know what to do about that

Re: [HACKERS] Remove autovacuum GUC?

2016-10-20 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > That argument suggests we shouldn't have autovacuum :P It certainly does not. That, too, would be removing a useful option. In fact, it would be removing the most useful option that is the right choice for most

Re: [HACKERS] Remove autovacuum GUC?

2016-10-20 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Hello, What about a simpler solution to all of this. Let's just remove it from postgresql.conf. Out of sight. If someone needs to test they can but a uneducated user won't immediately know what to do about that "autovacuum process" and when they look it up the documentation is exceedingly

Re: [HACKERS] Remove autovacuum GUC?

2016-10-20 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 10/20/2016 09:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: The right answer isn't the answer founded in the reality for many if not most of our users. I think that's high-handed nonsense. Sure, there are some unsophisticated

Re: [HACKERS] Remove autovacuum GUC?

2016-10-20 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Joshua D. Drake > wrote: >> The right answer isn't the answer founded in the reality for many if not >> most of our users. > > I think that's high-handed

Re: [HACKERS] Remove autovacuum GUC?

2016-10-20 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > The right answer isn't the answer founded in the reality for many if not > most of our users. I think that's high-handed nonsense. Sure, there are some unsophisticated users who do incredibly stupid things and

Re: [HACKERS] Remove autovacuum GUC?

2016-10-20 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 10/20/2016 07:12 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Setting autovacuum=off is at least useful for testing purposes and I've used it that way. On the other hand, I haven't seen a customer disable this unintentionally in

Re: [HACKERS] Remove autovacuum GUC?

2016-10-20 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > After all these years, we are still regularly running into people who say, > "performance was bad so we disabled autovacuum". I am not talking about once > in a while, it is often. I would like us to consider

[HACKERS] Remove autovacuum GUC?

2016-10-20 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Hello, After all these years, we are still regularly running into people who say, "performance was bad so we disabled autovacuum". I am not talking about once in a while, it is often. I would like us to consider removing the autovacuum option. Here are a few reasons: 1. It does not hurt