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.
--
Peter Geoghegan
