On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> I have spent some time looking at your patch and testing it. This
>> looks sane. A small comment that I have would be to add an assertion
>> at the top of perform_work_item to be sure that it is called in the
>> memory
On 9/23/17, 12:36 PM, "Tom Lane" wrote:
>"Bossart, Nathan" writes:
>> This looks reasonable to me as well. I haven't noticed any issues after
>> a couple hours of pgbench with aggressive autovacuum settings, either.
>
> Thanks for looking. As I'm sure you realize, what motivated that was
> not
"Bossart, Nathan" writes:
> This looks reasonable to me as well. I haven't noticed any issues after
> a couple hours of pgbench with aggressive autovacuum settings, either.
Thanks for looking. As I'm sure you realize, what motivated that was
not liking the switch into AutovacMemCxt that you'd a
Michael Paquier writes:
> I have spent some time looking at your patch and testing it. This
> looks sane. A small comment that I have would be to add an assertion
> at the top of perform_work_item to be sure that it is called in the
> memory context of AutovacMemCxt.
Done like that, thanks for re
On 9/23/17, 5:27 AM, "Michael Paquier" wrote:
>On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I notice that autovacuum.c calls autovacuum_do_vac_analyze, and
>> thereby vacuum(), in TopTransactionContext. This doesn't seem
>> like a terribly great idea, because it doesn't correspond to what
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> One idea I just had is to somehow add it to src/test/modules/brin, and
> set up the postmaster in that test with autovacuum_naptime=1s. I'll go
> check how feasible that is. (By placing it there we could also verify
> that the index does indeed contain the index entries w
Tom Lane wrote:
> I notice that autovacuum.c calls autovacuum_do_vac_analyze, and
> thereby vacuum(), in TopTransactionContext. This doesn't seem
> like a terribly great idea, because it doesn't correspond to what
> happens during a manually-invoked vacuum. TopTransactionContext
> will go away wh
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I notice that autovacuum.c calls autovacuum_do_vac_analyze, and
> thereby vacuum(), in TopTransactionContext. This doesn't seem
> like a terribly great idea, because it doesn't correspond to what
> happens during a manually-invoked vacuum.
Indee
I notice that autovacuum.c calls autovacuum_do_vac_analyze, and
thereby vacuum(), in TopTransactionContext. This doesn't seem
like a terribly great idea, because it doesn't correspond to what
happens during a manually-invoked vacuum. TopTransactionContext
will go away when vacuum() commits the ou