Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread

From: Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread
Date: 2025-10-08 17:47:50
Message-ID: CAA5RZ0v3uCOV16c=q2dRR+xdZDzC=wveGuVqiZZm0Taq7=q+pg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Not saying that the current approach, which is as you mention is
> random, is any better, however this approach will likely increase
> the behavior of large tables saturating workers.

Maybe it will be good to allocate some workers to the oldest tables
and workers based on some random list? This could balance things
out between the oldest (large) tables and everything else to avoid
this problem.

--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2025-10-08 18:08:13 Re: Should we update the random_page_cost default value?
Previous Message Ants Aasma 2025-10-08 17:38:53 Re: sync_standbys_defined and pg_stat_replication