Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>
Cc: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sami Imseih <samimseih(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: 2025-11-11 19:48:53
Message-ID: aROTJV90-PUY1OZj@nathan
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 02:43:19PM -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> FWIW, when I have built these types of systems in the past, and when I
> wanted an aggressive recheck-type mechanism, the most common methods
> involved tying it to autovacuum_max_workers.

Would you mind elaborating on this point? Do you mean that you'd rebuild
the list every a_m_w tables, or something else?

--
nathan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sami Imseih 2025-11-11 19:50:20 Re: Improve LWLock tranche name visibility across backends
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2025-11-11 19:46:59 Re: vacuumdb: add --dry-run