On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:41 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:33 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> > More concretely, maybe the new GUC is forced to be 1.05 of
> > vacuum_freeze_table_age. Of course that scheme is a bit arbitrary --
> > but so is the existing 0.95 scheme.
>
> I meant to write 1.05 of autovacuum_vacuum_max_age. So just as
> vacuum_freeze_table_age cannot really be greater than 0.95 *
> autovacuum_vacuum_max_age, your new GUC cannot really be less than
> 1.05 * autovacuum_vacuum_max_age.
That makes sense to me.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
