Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables

Peter Eisentraut escribió:
> On 1/25/13 10:29 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > And I do want to get something back-patchable.
>
> Autovacuum has existed for N years and nobody complained about this
> until just now, so I don't see a strong justification for backpatching.

I disagree about people not complaining.  Maybe the complaints have not
been specifically about the wraparound stuff and toast tables, but for
sure there have been complaints about autovacuum not giving more
priority to tables that need work more urgently.

> Or is this a regression from an earlier release?

Nope.

> In general, I think we should backpatch less.

I don't disagree with this general principle, but I certainly don't like
the idea of letting systems run with known flaws just because we're too
scared to patch them.  Now I don't object to a plan such as keep it in
master only for a while and backpatch after it has seen some more
testing.  But for large sites, this is a real problem and they have to
work around it manually which is frequently inconvenient; keep in mind
9.0 is going to be supported for years yet.

That said, if consensus here is to not backpatch this at all, I will go
with that; but let's have the argument first.

--
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services