| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, David Rowley <dgrowley(at)gmail(dot)com>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Trigger more frequent autovacuums of heavy insert tables |
| Date: | 2025-11-19 16:08:37 |
| Message-ID: | aR3rhfVCEpgtg9mK@nathan |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 04:30:14PM -0500, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> I wish we could say "* number of unfrozen tuples". I know that's not
> true because we don't know how many tuples are on each page, but the
> formula feels a little overly detailed this way. Anyway, this is fine.
> I didn't apply and render the whole thing, but the wording looks good
> to me.
Committed, thanks for looking.
> It's actually interesting that we calculate the thresholds in tuples
> when vacuum operates per page. And the per tuple costs are not really
> as big of a deal as the per page costs.
Hm... I wonder how much of a difference this makes and whether it's worth
changing.
--
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2025-11-19 16:14:53 | Re: Consistently use the XLogRecPtrIsInvalid() macro |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2025-11-19 16:02:08 | Re: pgsql: doc: remove verbiage about "receiving" data from rep. slots |