Sure, feel free to propose a specific ordering. I think you would need to take table size into account too.
Thanks, i thought we were already taking the database size into account somewhat when we calculate the vacuum threshold by factoring in reltuples. My initial thought is that we already decide to vacuum a table if (vactuples > vacthresh). if we order the list by vacpriority where
vacpriority=vactuples - vacthresh
it would be reasonable start, without being too complicated , thoughts?
Something that's also important to fix while you're doing that is fixing the "BUG" that is mentioned in the code that Simon griped about not long ago.
