On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 10:40:39PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2020-03-24 14:26:06 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Nothing really fancy: >> - autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay to 2ms (default of v12, but we used it >> in v11 as well). >> - autovacuum_naptime = 15s >> - autovacuum_max_workers = 6 >> - log_autovacuum_min_duration = 0 > > Oh, so you're also involved in this? I'm starting to get a bit confused > as to who is reporting what. Yeah, sort of. Julien has done a lot of work on that and I have an access to the data and test beds, so we are just saying the same things. > Well, there's no logging of autovacuum launchers that don't do anything > due to the "skipping redundant" logic, with normal log level. If somehow > the horizon logic of autovacuum workers gets out of whack with what > vacuumlazy.c does, then you'd not get any vacuums. But a usage level > triggered analyze could still happen on such a table, I think. What surprised me the most is that the same table happened to be analyzed again and again after the launcher began its blackout. > While looking at this issue I found a few problems, btw. That seems more > like a -hackers discussion, so I started: > https://postgr.es/m/20200323235036.6pje6usrjjx22zv3%40alap3.anarazel.de Yes, let's discuss there. > I think I might just have figured out another one... Ouch. -- Michael
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
