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

From Nathan Bossart
Subject Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread
Date
Msg-id aQI5lnTL-AJd3de-@nathan
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread  (wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 11:10:55AM +0800, wenhui qiu wrote:
> Typically, DBAs avoid setting autovacuum_freeze_max_age too close to
> vacuum_failsafe_age. Therefore, your logic most likely uses the
> vacuum_failsafe_age value.
> Would taking the average of the two be a better approach?

That approach would begin aggressively scaling the priority of tables
sooner, but I don't know if that's strictly better.  In any case, I'd like
to avoid making the score calculation too magical.

-- 
nathan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread
Next
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread