Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread

From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeremy Schneider <schneider(at)ardentperf(dot)com>, Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread
Date: 2025-10-24 22:25:02
Message-ID: CAApHDvq5x+Su54QFhQDTkz+oUG2XbPGugOgp2YbhrTXTbbrGJQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 at 10:14, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 3:35 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > If we had the varying sleep time as I mentioned above, the
> > failsafe code could even be removed as the
> > "autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay / <tables score>" calculation would
> > effectively zero the sleep time with any table > failsafe age.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "the failsafe could be removed".
> Importantly, the failsafe will abandon all further index vacuuming.
> That's why it's presented as something that you as a user are not
> supposed to rely on.

I didn't realise it did that too. I thought it just dropped the delay
to zero. In that case, I revoke the statement.

David

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2025-10-24 22:35:58 Re: POC: enable logical decoding when wal_level = 'replica' without a server restart
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2025-10-24 21:41:17 Re: ci: Improve OpenBSD core dump backtrace handling