Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>, Jeremy Schneider <schneider(at)ardentperf(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread
Date: 2026-03-11 17:28:20
Message-ID: abGmNAVIPSqX124E@nathan
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 12:08:52PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> The main issue is that the scores can reach quadrillions, or even billions,
> which feels excessive, especially if exposed in DEBUG3 or in a future
> prioritization view.

But why is that an issue? Because the number looks big when there's
extremely verbose logging enabled? I'm not following your objection. IMHO
we _want_ the score to be excessively high in these cases so that there's
basically zero chance a table with unreasonable bloat takes priority. This
was discussed a bit upthread [0].

[0] https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvqrd%3DSHVUytdRj55OWnLH98Rvtzqam5zq2f4XKRZa7t9Q%40mail.gmail.com

--
nathan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2026-03-11 17:39:30 Re: Change initdb default to the builtin collation provider
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2026-03-11 17:25:06 Re: <productname> on SGML files is used for what ?