On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 09:03:54AM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> I'm still trying to work out what Sami sees in the results that he
> doesn't think is good. I resuggested he try coding up the periodic
> refresh-the-list code to see if it makes the thing he sees better. I
> was hoping that we could get away with not doing that for stage 1 of
> this. My concern there is that these change-the-way-autovacuum-works
> patches seems to blow up quickly as everyone chips in with autovacuum
> problems they want fixed and expect the patch to do it all.
+1
> That said, the periodic refresh probably isn't too hard. I suspected
> it was something like:
>
> /* when enough time has passed, refresh the list to ensure the
> scores aren't too out-of-date */
> if (time is > lastcheck + autovacuum_naptime * <something>)
> {
> list_free_deep(tables_to_process);
> goto the_top;
> }
> } // end of foreach(cell, tables_to_process)
My concern is that this might add already-processed tables back to the
list, so a worker might never be able to clear it. Maybe that's not a real
problem in practice for some reason, but it does feel like a step too far
for stage 1, as you said above.
--
nathan
