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: 2026-03-12 19:20:08
Message-ID: abMR6MQGQyyKWep4@nathan
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I'm debating whether I should move forward with committing this [0] for
v19. On one hand, I think I've addressed all the latest feedback, and I'm
not aware of any sustained objections to the approach. But on the other
hand, there hasn't been much discussion since November (my fault), and I
can't quite tell if this patch has enough support. At the moment, I'm
leaning towards committing it, but I'm curious what folks think.

[0] https://postgr.es/m/attachment/191721/v11-0001-autovacuum-scheduling-improvements.patch

--
nathan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bryan Green 2026-03-12 19:21:12 Re: Avoid multiple calls to memcpy (src/backend/access/index/genam.c)
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2026-03-12 19:20:07 Re: Change initdb default to the builtin collation provider