Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Rowley
Subject Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread
Date
Msg-id CAApHDvq5x+Su54QFhQDTkz+oUG2XbPGugOgp2YbhrTXTbbrGJQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 at 10:14, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 3:35 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If we had the varying sleep time as I mentioned above, the
> > failsafe code could even be removed as the
> > "autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay / <tables score>" calculation would
> > effectively zero the sleep time with any table > failsafe age.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "the failsafe could be removed".
> Importantly, the failsafe will abandon all further index vacuuming.
> That's why it's presented as something that you as a user are not
> supposed to rely on.

I didn't realise it did that too. I thought it just dropped the delay
to zero. In that case, I revoke the statement.

David



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: ci: Improve OpenBSD core dump backtrace handling
Next
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: POC: enable logical decoding when wal_level = 'replica' without a server restart