Horton

Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread

Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Jeremy Schneider <schneider@ardentperf.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2025-11-12T22:10:22Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Add rudimentary table prioritization to autovacuum.

  2. Trigger more frequent autovacuums with relallfrozen

  3. Harden nbtree page deletion.

  4. Check for interrupts inside the nbtree page deletion code.

> I do think re-prioritization is worth considering, but IMHO we should leave
> it out of phase 1.  I think it's pretty easy to reason about one round of
> prioritization being okay.  The order is completely arbitrary today, so how
> could ordering by vacuum-related criteria make things any worse?

While it’s true that the current table order is arbitrary, that arbitrariness
naturally helps distribute vacuum work across tables of various sizes
at a given time

The proposal now is by design forcing all the top bloated table, that
will require more I/O to vacuum to be vacuumed at the same time,
by all workers. Users may observe this after they upgrade and wonder
why their I/O profile changed and perhaps slowed others non-vacuum
related processing down. They also don't have a knob to go back to
the previous behavior.

Of course, this behavior can and will happen now, but with this
prioritization, we are forcing it.

Is this a concern?

--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)