| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeremy Schneider <schneider(at)ardentperf(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread |
| Date: | 2025-10-29 15:58:14 |
| Message-ID: | aQI5lnTL-AJd3de-@nathan |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 11:10:55AM +0800, wenhui qiu wrote:
> Typically, DBAs avoid setting autovacuum_freeze_max_age too close to
> vacuum_failsafe_age. Therefore, your logic most likely uses the
> vacuum_failsafe_age value.
> Would taking the average of the two be a better approach?
That approach would begin aggressively scaling the priority of tables
sooner, but I don't know if that's strictly better. In any case, I'd like
to avoid making the score calculation too magical.
--
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-10-29 16:07:16 | Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-10-29 15:51:18 | Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread |