Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread

> Just a few things:
>
> 1/
> + Oid xid_age;
> + Oid mxid_age;
>
> Is using Oid here intentional? I'm curious why not use uint32 for clarity?
>
> 2/
> The new GUC docs says "...component of the score...", but without
> introducing the concept of the prioritization score.
> I think we should expand a bit more on this topic to help a user
> understand and tune these more effectively. Attached is my
> proposal for the docs. I tried to keep it informative without
> being too verbose, and avoided making specific recommendations.

My apologies. I found something else that may need
addressing.

+ if (xid_age >= effective_xid_failsafe_age)
+ xid_score = pow(xid_score, Max(1.0, (double)
xid_age / 100000000));
+ if (mxid_age >= effective_mxid_failsafe_age)
+ mxid_score = pow(mxid_score, Max(1.0, (double)
mxid_age / 100000000));
+

The current scaling calculation for force_vacuum could lead to
exorbitantly high scores.
Using DEBUG3 and consume_xids_until(2000000000), notice how the score goes
from 7.93 to 661828682916018.125 once past failsafe age.

36), anl: 0 (threshold 97929), score: 7.930
2026-03-10 19:41:11.979 CDT [74007] DEBUG: foo: vac: 0 (threshold
195809), ins: 0 (threshold 176836), anl: 0 (threshold 97929), score:
7.930
2026-03-10 19:41:32.062 CDT [74038] DEBUG: foo: vac: 0 (threshold
195809), ins: 0 (threshold 176836), anl: 0 (threshold 97929), score:
661828682916018.125
2026-03-10 19:41:32.063 CDT [74038] DEBUG: foo: vac: 0 (threshold
195809), ins: 0 (threshold 176836), anl: 0 (threshold 97929), score:
661828682916018.125
2026-03-10 19:41:51.961 CDT [74066] DEBUG: foo: vac: 0 (threshold
195809), ins: 0 (threshold 176836), anl: 0 (threshold 97929), score:
26761249940789168.000

Do you think it will be better to just to add the age to the
score?

if (xid_age >= effective_xid_failsafe_age)
xid_score += (double) xid_age;
if (mxid_age >= effective_mxid_failsafe_age)
mxid_score += (double) mxid_age

For most cases, this should be high enough to to make the
score high enough to sort to the top, as mentioned in the
comments:

+ * As in vacuum_xid_failsafe_check(), the effective
failsafe age is no
+ * less than 105% the value of the respective *_freeze_max_age
+ * parameter. Note that per-table settings could
result in a low
+ * score even if the table surpasses the failsafe
settings. However,
+ * this is a strange enough corner case that we don't
bother trying to
+ * handle it.
+ */

--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)