Horton
Menu

Re: New GUC autovacuum_max_threshold ?

wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx@gmail.com>

View thread
From: wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx@gmail.com>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Cc: Vinícius Abrahão <vinnix.bsd@gmail.com>, Frédéric Yhuel <frederic.yhuel@dalibo.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>, Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-01-10T01:45:42Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
HI Nathan Frédéric Yhuel
     On 1/7/25 23:57, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Here is a rebased patch for cfbot.  AFAICT we are still pretty far from
> consensus on which approach to take, unfortunately.
>

> For what it's worth, although I would have preferred the sub-linear
> growth thing, I'd much rather have this than nothing.
Agree , Better late than never. But I personally think a GUC parameter can
also be added, allowing users to choose the algorithm that works better,
especially since SQL Server is a pioneer in this area."


On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 2:20 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 09:32:58PM +0000, Vinícius Abrahão wrote:
> > Please also provide the tests on the new parameter you want to introduce.
>
> I skimmed around and didn't see any existing tests for these kinds of
> parameters, which of course isn't a great reason not to add tests, but it's
> also not clear what such tests might look like.  Do you have any ideas?
>
> --
> nathan
>

Commits

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

  1. Introduce autovacuum_vacuum_max_threshold.

  2. Consolidate docs for vacuum-related GUCs in new subsection