Re: [PATCHES] Autovacuum integration patch
While we are at it (assuming the autovacuum patch gets included in 8.1) we have a few autovacuum related todo items. These are the ones I can think of right now: * XID Wraparound improvement, moving to per-table vacuuming rather than per database. (8.2) * Alter table commands to set per table autovacuum threshold settings. (8.2) * Incorporate FSM data to improve vacuum decision making (8.2) * Deal with stats reset better, possibly force stats reset to false if autovacuum is enabled. (8.2) * Add the concept of a maintenance window to autovacuum. (maybe 8.1?) * Have the VACUUM and ANALYZE commands update the pg_autovacuum table itself. This will allow autovacuum to work in harmony with manually issued VACUUM's. (I would like to see this done for 8.1, but I will understand if people demand that it wait for 8.2) * Add some regression tests? Not sure what would be appropriate here. (8.1) * Improve autovacuum threshold defaults (8.1) Anyone have anything to add to the list? Matthew Bruce Momjian wrote: TODO item? ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [PATCHES] Autovacuum integration patch
Matthew T. O'Connor wrote: > I think so. Something like: Improve autovacuum xid wraparound detection > by moving to a pertable solution rather than per database. Thanks, added. -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [PATCHES] Autovacuum integration patch
I think so. Something like: Improve autovacuum xid wraparound detection by moving to a pertable solution rather than per database. Matt Bruce Momjian wrote: TODO item? ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [PATCHES] Autovacuum integration patch
TODO item? --- Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 01:00:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > "Matthew T. O'Connor" writes: > > > Tom Lane wrote: > > >> No, you're wrong. VACUUMing of individual tables is perfectly good > > >> enough as far as XID wrap protection goes, it's just that we chose to > > >> track whether it had been done at the database level. If we tracked it > > >> in, say, a new pg_class column then in principle you could protect > > >> against XID wrap with only table-at-a-time VACUUMs. > > > > > Good, I'm glad I'm wrong on this. This will be another nice advantage > > > of autovacuum then and should be fairly easy to do. Any thoughts on > > > this being a change we can get in for 8.1? > > > > I'd say this is probably a tad too late --- there's a fair amount of > > code change that would be needed, none of which has been written, and > > we are past the feature-freeze deadline for new code. > > Right. I've written a small, non-intrusive patch that handles the Xid > wraparound just as pg_autovacuum used to, checking the Xid from > pg_database. > > -- > Alvaro Herrera () > "Hay quien adquiere la mala costumbre de ser infeliz" (M. A. Evans) > > ---(end of broadcast)--- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [PATCHES] Autovacuum integration patch
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 01:00:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Matthew T. O'Connor" writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> No, you're wrong. VACUUMing of individual tables is perfectly good > >> enough as far as XID wrap protection goes, it's just that we chose to > >> track whether it had been done at the database level. If we tracked it > >> in, say, a new pg_class column then in principle you could protect > >> against XID wrap with only table-at-a-time VACUUMs. > > > Good, I'm glad I'm wrong on this. This will be another nice advantage > > of autovacuum then and should be fairly easy to do. Any thoughts on > > this being a change we can get in for 8.1? > > I'd say this is probably a tad too late --- there's a fair amount of > code change that would be needed, none of which has been written, and > we are past the feature-freeze deadline for new code. Right. I've written a small, non-intrusive patch that handles the Xid wraparound just as pg_autovacuum used to, checking the Xid from pg_database. -- Alvaro Herrera () "Hay quien adquiere la mala costumbre de ser infeliz" (M. A. Evans) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [PATCHES] Autovacuum integration patch
"Matthew T. O'Connor" writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> No, you're wrong. VACUUMing of individual tables is perfectly good >> enough as far as XID wrap protection goes, it's just that we chose to >> track whether it had been done at the database level. If we tracked it >> in, say, a new pg_class column then in principle you could protect >> against XID wrap with only table-at-a-time VACUUMs. > Good, I'm glad I'm wrong on this. This will be another nice advantage > of autovacuum then and should be fairly easy to do. Any thoughts on > this being a change we can get in for 8.1? I'd say this is probably a tad too late --- there's a fair amount of code change that would be needed, none of which has been written, and we are past the feature-freeze deadline for new code. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [PATCHES] Autovacuum integration patch
Tom Lane wrote: "Matthew T. O'Connor" writes: The current implementation of XID wraparound requires that the vacuum command be run against the entire database, you can not run it on a per table basis and have it work. At least that is my understanding, No, you're wrong. VACUUMing of individual tables is perfectly good enough as far as XID wrap protection goes, it's just that we chose to track whether it had been done at the database level. If we tracked it in, say, a new pg_class column then in principle you could protect against XID wrap with only table-at-a-time VACUUMs. (I think you'd still want the pg_database column, but you'd update it to be the minimum of the per-table values at the completion of any VACUUM.) At the time this didn't seem particularly worth the complication since no one would be likely to try to do that manually --- but with autovacuum handling the work, it starts to sound more realistic. Good, I'm glad I'm wrong on this. This will be another nice advantage of autovacuum then and should be fairly easy to do. Any thoughts on this being a change we can get in for 8.1? Matt ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [PATCHES] Autovacuum integration patch
"Matthew T. O'Connor" writes: >>> Hmm. Yes, this patch doesn't handle Xid wraparound. This should be >>> easy to add though. Anyway, I was thinking that we could add a "last >>> vacuum Xid" to pg_autovacuum, and handle Xid wraparound for each table >>> separately -- this means you don't have to issue huge whole-database >>> VACUUMs, because it will be handled nicely for each table. Storing the >>> last vacuum Xid in pg_database would have to be rethought. > The current implementation of XID wraparound requires that the vacuum > command be run against the entire database, you can not run it on a per > table basis and have it work. At least that is my understanding, No, you're wrong. VACUUMing of individual tables is perfectly good enough as far as XID wrap protection goes, it's just that we chose to track whether it had been done at the database level. If we tracked it in, say, a new pg_class column then in principle you could protect against XID wrap with only table-at-a-time VACUUMs. (I think you'd still want the pg_database column, but you'd update it to be the minimum of the per-table values at the completion of any VACUUM.) At the time this didn't seem particularly worth the complication since no one would be likely to try to do that manually --- but with autovacuum handling the work, it starts to sound more realistic. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [PATCHES] Autovacuum integration patch
XID wraparound: The patch as submitted doesn't handle XID wraparound issues. The old contrib autovacuum would do an XID wraparound check as it's 1st operation upon connecting to a database. If XID wraparound was looks like it's going to be a problem soon, then the whole database would be vacuumed, eliminating the need to check specific tables. Hmm. Yes, this patch doesn't handle Xid wraparound. This should be easy to add though. Anyway, I was thinking that we could add a "last vacuum Xid" to pg_autovacuum, and handle Xid wraparound for each table separately -- this means you don't have to issue huge whole-database VACUUMs, because it will be handled nicely for each table. Storing the last vacuum Xid in pg_database would have to be rethought. The current implementation of XID wraparound requires that the vacuum command be run against the entire database, you can not run it on a per table basis and have it work. At least that is my understanding, it would require some reworking of the vacuum system and I have no idea what is involved in that. For now, we should just do it the simple way. BTW, I think this is a candidate for only being done during the maintenance window. Maybe what we could do is have a separate pg_vacuum table to hold constantly-moving information about the tables: last vacuum Xid, count of tuples at last vacuum/analyze, etc; so pg_autovacuum would only hold the constants for autovacuum equations. This pg_vacuum table would be updated by VACUUM, not autovacuum, so it would be always correct and up- to-date. I'm not sure I see the value in a new pg_vacuum table. reltuples already has the tuple count from the last vacuum and I don't think last XID on a per table basis is helpful. Better logging of autovacuum activity: I think the we could use some more detail in the debug elog statements. For example showing exactly what autovacuum believes the threshold and current count is. Ok. I actually had lots more logging in the original patch, but I removed it because it was too verbose. Again, it's easy to add. Well, I don't know what is best, but it would be nice to be able to get at the information that tells you why autovacuum did or did not take action. Perhaps put back what you had in, but move it up to a higher debug level. FWIW, I think the debug info from the contrib version was sufficient. How to deal with shared relations: As an optimization, the contrib version of autovacuum treated shared relations different than it treated the rest when connected to any database that is not template1. Ah, interesting. Yes, I think that could be done too. Very easy to do. Anyway, the shared relations are not that big usually, so this shouldn't be an issue. Agreed this is not a big issue, it's a bit of a micro optimization. Couple of other thoughts: Do the vacuum commands respect the GUC vacuum delay settings? Huh, I don't know. I just issue a vacuum() call. That function sets the delay settings AFAICS, so I think it should be working. Can someone confirm this? Should we be able to set per table vacuum delay settings? We could set that in the hypotetical pg_vacuum relation. Again, I don't think this would be good for the pg_vacuum table, I think it should be in the autovacuum table, because what a user wants autovacuum to do might be different than what he wants a manually run vacuum to do. This patch doesn't have the "maintenance window" that was discussed a while ago. True. I have several questions about it. Where would that information be stored, in another system catalog? Would it be per-database or per-table? What happens if I'm not able to do all work inside the maintenance window, is it left for the next one? If the maintenance window ends and there is a vacuum running, is it terminated or is it allowed to continue? One could argue that it should be per database, but I think per cluster should be sufficient. I think it could be handled as few GUC settings, such as: autovac_maint_begin = "1AM" autovac_maint_duration = 4 (measured in hours) autovac_maint_factor = .5 (reduce the thresholds by half during the maintenance window, this option might be good to have on a per table basis, if so, then add it to the pg_autovacuum table) If there is still work to do after the maint window expires, then it's left for next time or when the regular threshold is exceeded which ever happens first. I wouldn't terminate an in progress vacuum. There is a very important issue I forgot to mention. This autovacuum process only handles databases that exist in the Stats hash table. However, the stat hash table only has information about databases and tables that have been used in the current postmaster run. So if you don't connect to a database regularly, that database won't get "autovacuumed" after a postmaster restart. I think (but IMBFOS) that this is also true for individual table
Re: [PATCHES] Autovacuum integration patch
Alvaro Herrera wrote: On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 12:03:12AM -0400, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote: Alvaro Herrera wrote: Sorry, forgot to mention: - There are no docs I can help here as long as I don't have to have the docs done before July 1. You don't. Ok, so I'm not writing any docs, I leave that to you :-) Ok. - There are no ALTER TABLE commands to change the pg_autovacuum attributes for a table. (Enable/disable, set thresholds and scaling factor) I don't think we need this do we? Mucking around in the autovacuum table shouldn't cause the system any serious problems, if you do mess up your values, it's easy to just reset them all to 0 and start back with the defaults. The problem is you have to be superuser to be able to do it. An ALTER TABLE command would allow the table and database owners to do it. Fair point. However I would still put this in the category of nice additions, but we really don't *NEED* right now. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [PATCHES] Autovacuum integration patch
Alvaro Herrera wrote: Hackers, Here is a first cut at autovacuum integration. Please have a look at it. Note that this patch automatically creates three new files: Couple more things that I didn't think about while we were talking about this the other day. XID wraparound: The patch as submitted doesn't handle XID wraparound issues. The old contrib autovacuum would do an XID wraparound check as it's 1st operation upon connecting to a database. If XID wraparound was looks like it's going to be a problem soon, then the whole database would be vacuumed, eliminating the need to check specific tables. Better logging of autovacuum activity: I think the we could use some more detail in the debug elog statements. For example showing exactly what autovacuum believes the threshold and current count is. How to deal with shared relations: As an optimization, the contrib version of autovacuum treated shared relations different than it treated the rest when connected to any database that is not template1. That is, when connected to a DB other than template1, autovacuum would not issue vacuum commands. rather it would only issue analyze commands. When autovacuum got around to connecting to template1, it would then issue the vacuum command. The hope was that this would reducing a shared relation from getting vacuumed n times (where n is the number of databases in a cluster) whenever it crossed over it's threshold. I'm not sure if this optimizaion is really important, or even exactly correct. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [PATCHES] Autovacuum integration patch
Alvaro Herrera wrote: There are several things that are painfully evident with this thing on: - TRUNCATE does not update stats. It should send a stat message to which we can react. How important is this really? The stats from before the truncate might be ok, especially since they might represent how the table will look in the future. Also, there isn't any free space in a table that was just truncated, so there is no need to run vacuum to update the FSM. - If you empty a whole table using DELETE just after an automatically-issued VACUUM takes place, the new threshold may not be enough to trigger a new VACUUM. Thus you end up with a bloated table, and it won't get vacuumed until it grows again. This may be a problem with the cost equations, but those are AFAICT identical to those of pg_autovacuum, so we may need to rethink the equations. I'm very open to a better equation if someone has one, but I'm not sure what the problem is. If there are 10,000 rows in a table and an autovacuum takes place, you will have a threshold of 5,000 (assuming you are using the default threshold parmeters: base = 1000, scaling factor = 0.4). So now when all the rows are deleted that will be enough activity to cross the threshold and cause another vacuum. I guess the problem is if the table is smaller say, 1,000 rows, now after a vacuum, the threshold will be 1,400, and deleting all the rows will not cause a vacuum. But that is OK because a 1,000 row table is probably not very big. The purpose of the base threshold value is so that vacuum commands don't get run continually on really small tables that are updated a lot, it's OK to have some slack space. If the default is deemed to high, we can always lower it. - The default value of on for reset stats on server start is going to be painful with autovacuum, because it reacts badly to losing the info. I agree, this is an issue. Is there any reason not to change stats_reset_on_restart to default to true? - We should make VACUUM and ANALYZE update the pg_autovacuum relation, in order to make the autovacuum daemon behave sanely with manually issued VACUUM/ANALYZE. Agree completly. This way autovacuum can work in harmony with manually issued or cron isssued vacuum commands. - Having an autovacuum process running on a database can be surprising if you want to drop a database, or create a new one using it as a template. This happenned to me several times. Not sure what to do about this. We could reduce the number of times autovacuum actually connects to a database by checking the stats flat file before we connect. If there hasn't been any activity since the last time we connected, then don't connect again. Better ideas anyone? - The shutdown sequence is not debugged nor very well tested. It may be all wrong. Ok, I'm testing it now, i'll let you know if I see anything funny. - The startup sequence is a mixture from pgarch, normal backend and pgstat. I find it relatively clean but I can't swear it's bug-free. Same as above. - There are no docs I can help here as long as I don't have to have the docs done before July 1. - There are no ALTER TABLE commands to change the pg_autovacuum attributes for a table. (Enable/disable, set thresholds and scaling factor) I don't think we need this do we? Mucking around in the autovacuum table shouldn't cause the system any serious problems, if you do mess up your values, it's easy to just reset them all to 0 and start back with the defaults. - I compiled with -DEXEC_BACKEND, but I didn't look to see if it actually worked on that case. Apart from all these issues, it is completely functional :-) It can survive several "make installcheck" runs without problem, and the regression database is vacuumed/analyzed as it runs. Cool. Some of these issues are trivial to handle. However I'd like to release this right now, so I can go back to "shared dependencies" now that role support is in. Barring any objections I think this should be integrated, so these issues can be tackled by interested parties. Couple of other thoughts: Do the vacuum commands respect the GUC vacuum delay settings? Should we be able to set per table vacuum delay settings? This patch doesn't have the "maintenance window" that was discussed a while ago. Can that be added after July 1? Thanks Alvaro for doing the integration work Matthew O'Connor ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [PATCHES] Autovacuum Integration Patch Take 5
Matthew, your reply was exactly the type of reply I would have made in your situation. Your arguments are clear and indisputable. Due to the many large patches the we had to process during this release, we serialized their review. However, I made promises to developers that their patches would get the same consideration if they were reviewed early or late. Obviously this wasn't true of your patch. We found more issues than we thought and didn't give you time to address them. Frankly we are lucky autovacuum was the only item that didn't make it because several features were in similar need of major work. Of course that is no consolation to you and people looking for autovacuum in 8.0. Not sure what I can do about it at this point. I am going to write up a whole documentation section on 3rd party tools and interfaces and pg_autovacuum would have a big mention there. There is the issue of Win32 and the need for pg_autovacuum to start easily. --- Matthew T. O'Connor wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > >You're headed in the right direction, but I'm afraid we're running out > >of time. The core committee has chewed this over and agreed that we > >can't postpone beta for the amount of time we think it will take to make > >this patch committable. So we're going to hold it over for the 8.1 > >release cycle. > > > >I have to make a personal apology to you for the fact that things worked > >out this way. I really should have looked at your patch much earlier > >and given you some feedback that might have allowed you to resolve the > >issues in time. I did not because (a) I felt that the other patches > >I was working on were more important features (a judgment I still stand > >by) and (b) I thought your patch was in good enough shape that we could > >apply it with little effort. That judgment was badly off, and again I > >must apologize for it. I hope you won't get discouraged, and will > >continue to work on an integrated autovacuum for 8.1. > > > > > > AGGGHH! > This is very frustrating. I saw this coming weeks and weeks ago and > tried to get people's attention so that this wouldn't happen. Aside > from my personal frustration, I will say that autovacuum is a high > priority for lots of users of autovacuum and there are already lots of > users looking forward to it being in 8.0. FWIW, I tried to clean up as > much stuff as I could the other night and submit and updated patch, I > would guess that it wouldn't take you very long to clean up the shutdown > issues. > > BTW, I choose to try to integrate it into the backend on the > recomendation of several people on the hackers list despite my warnings > that I would probably need help with the backend code issues. I could > have instead put my time towards an improved version in contrib, now the > end-users will have to go another release cycle without any of the > feature improvements I had hoped for. > > >FWIW, core has also agreed that we want to shoot for a much shorter > >release cycle for 8.1 than we have had in the past couple of releases. > >It seems likely that as the new 8.0 features are shaken out, 8.1 will > >be mostly a mop-up development cycle, and that we will want to push it > >out relatively soon (we're thinking of perhaps 3-4 months in > >development, with a total release cycle of 6-7 months). > > > > > > > I think we have all heard this before > > ---(end of broadcast)--- > TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend > -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PATCHES] Autovacuum Integration Patch Take 5
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Lane > Sent: 06 August 2004 00:42 > To: Matthew T. O'Connor > Cc: PostgreSQL Patches > Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Autovacuum Integration Patch Take 5 > > "Matthew T. O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Well I didn't get out of the office as early as I had hoped, and I > > have stayed up longer than I had planned, but I have a patch that > > addresses many of the issues raised by Tom. Please take a > look at let > > me know if I'm heading in the right direction. > > You're headed in the right direction, but I'm afraid we're > running out of time. The core committee has chewed this over > and agreed that we can't postpone beta for the amount of time > we think it will take to make this patch committable. So > we're going to hold it over for the 8.1 release cycle. Without wishing to sound insensitive to Matthew's frustration at this, can I therefore request that my win32 service patch gets applied to the /contrib version so we can look into integrating autovacuum with the Win32 installer please? Regards, Dave. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [PATCHES] Autovacuum Integration Patch Take 5
Tom Lane wrote: "Matthew T. O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: You're headed in the right direction, but I'm afraid we're running out of time. The core committee has chewed this over and agreed that we can't postpone beta for the amount of time we think it will take to make this patch committable. So we're going to hold it over for the 8.1 release cycle. IMHO releasing 8.0 without autovacuum will lead to vastly increased traffic on support lists, because many (most?) win32 users will fail to setup a vacuum for themselves; they are much less used to have some maintenance tasks on a server than linux users. This might become a nightmare for the community. I'd opt for including integrated autovacuum in Beta2, despite the maximum violation of feature freeze/beta release policies. Regards, Andreas ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [PATCHES] Autovacuum Integration Patch Take 5
"Matthew T. O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > BTW, I know people are eager for 8.0, but given that our release cycle > is so long, and that by everyones estimates we are at least 3 months > away from a release, what is the hurry for beta? If I thought we were just a day or two away from having a committable patch, I'd lobby for more delay, but I don't really think that (and now that I know you'll be gone over the next couple days, the odds of that have clearly dropped to zero). We have already slipped beta six weeks from the original plan, and we cannot keep slipping it indefinitely. Again, I do have to apologize for not having found some time to look at your patch earlier. Hindsight is always 20-20 :-( regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [PATCHES] Autovacuum Integration Patch Take 5
Tom Lane wrote: "Matthew T. O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Well I didn't get out of the office as early as I had hoped, and I have stayed up longer than I had planned, but I have a patch that addresses many of the issues raised by Tom. Please take a look at let me know if I'm heading in the right direction. You're headed in the right direction, but I'm afraid we're running out of time. The core committee has chewed this over and agreed that we can't postpone beta for the amount of time we think it will take to make this patch committable. So we're going to hold it over for the 8.1 release cycle. BTW, I know people are eager for 8.0, but given that our release cycle is so long, and that by everyones estimates we are at least 3 months away from a release, what is the hurry for beta? A few more days to get this feature in wouldn't hurt, it was submittted before feature freeze, and I have been waiting weeks on end to get feedback. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [PATCHES] Autovacuum Integration Patch Take 5
Tom Lane wrote: You're headed in the right direction, but I'm afraid we're running out of time. The core committee has chewed this over and agreed that we can't postpone beta for the amount of time we think it will take to make this patch committable. So we're going to hold it over for the 8.1 release cycle. I have to make a personal apology to you for the fact that things worked out this way. I really should have looked at your patch much earlier and given you some feedback that might have allowed you to resolve the issues in time. I did not because (a) I felt that the other patches I was working on were more important features (a judgment I still stand by) and (b) I thought your patch was in good enough shape that we could apply it with little effort. That judgment was badly off, and again I must apologize for it. I hope you won't get discouraged, and will continue to work on an integrated autovacuum for 8.1. AGGGHH! This is very frustrating. I saw this coming weeks and weeks ago and tried to get people's attention so that this wouldn't happen. Aside from my personal frustration, I will say that autovacuum is a high priority for lots of users of autovacuum and there are already lots of users looking forward to it being in 8.0. FWIW, I tried to clean up as much stuff as I could the other night and submit and updated patch, I would guess that it wouldn't take you very long to clean up the shutdown issues. BTW, I choose to try to integrate it into the backend on the recomendation of several people on the hackers list despite my warnings that I would probably need help with the backend code issues. I could have instead put my time towards an improved version in contrib, now the end-users will have to go another release cycle without any of the feature improvements I had hoped for. FWIW, core has also agreed that we want to shoot for a much shorter release cycle for 8.1 than we have had in the past couple of releases. It seems likely that as the new 8.0 features are shaken out, 8.1 will be mostly a mop-up development cycle, and that we will want to push it out relatively soon (we're thinking of perhaps 3-4 months in development, with a total release cycle of 6-7 months). I think we have all heard this before ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [PATCHES] Autovacuum Integration Patch Take 5
"Matthew T. O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Well I didn't get out of the office as early as I had hoped, and I have > stayed up longer than I had planned, but I have a patch that addresses > many of the issues raised by Tom. Please take a look at let me know if > I'm heading in the right direction. You're headed in the right direction, but I'm afraid we're running out of time. The core committee has chewed this over and agreed that we can't postpone beta for the amount of time we think it will take to make this patch committable. So we're going to hold it over for the 8.1 release cycle. I have to make a personal apology to you for the fact that things worked out this way. I really should have looked at your patch much earlier and given you some feedback that might have allowed you to resolve the issues in time. I did not because (a) I felt that the other patches I was working on were more important features (a judgment I still stand by) and (b) I thought your patch was in good enough shape that we could apply it with little effort. That judgment was badly off, and again I must apologize for it. I hope you won't get discouraged, and will continue to work on an integrated autovacuum for 8.1. FWIW, core has also agreed that we want to shoot for a much shorter release cycle for 8.1 than we have had in the past couple of releases. It seems likely that as the new 8.0 features are shaken out, 8.1 will be mostly a mop-up development cycle, and that we will want to push it out relatively soon (we're thinking of perhaps 3-4 months in development, with a total release cycle of 6-7 months). regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
