On Sat, Aug 06, 2022 at 03:41:57PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > > Note that a VACUUM that is an "automatic vacuum for inserted tuples" cannot
> > > [...] also be a "regular" autovacuum/VACUUM
> >
> > Why not ?
I think maybe you missed my intent in trimming the "anti-wraparound" part of
your text.
My point was concerning your statement that "autovacuum for inserted tuples ..
cannot also be a regular autovacuum" (meaning triggered by dead tuples).
> Well, autovacuum.c should have (and/or kind of already has) 3
> different triggering conditions. These are mutually exclusive
> conditions -- technically autovacuum.c always launches an autovacuum
> against a table because exactly 1 of the 3 thresholds were crossed.
The issue being that both thresholds can be crossed:
>> 2022-08-06 16:47:47.674 CDT autovacuum worker[12707] DEBUG: t: VAC: 99999 (THRESHOLD 50), INS: 99999 (THRESHOLD
1000),anl: 199998 (threshold 50)
--
Justin
