Hi,
On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 04:24:45AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-04-25 at 14:33 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Another reason, at least in existing releases, is that at some
> > point index vacuuming hits a wall because we run out of space for dead
> > tuples. We *most definitely* want to do index vacuuming before we get
> > to the point where we're going to have to do multiple cycles of index
> > vacuuming.
>
> That is more convincing. But do we need a GUC for that? What about
> making a table eligible for autovacuum as soon as the number of dead
> tuples reaches 90% of what you can hold in "autovacuum_work_mem"?
Due to the improvements in v17, this would basically never trigger
accordings to my understanding, or at least only after an excessive
amount of bloat has been accumulated.
Michael